<p>I was thinking about getting a PhD in a field of mathematics to pursue a tenureship position, but im not sure why getting a PhD has a bad reputation. Do MBAs also have that bad reputation? Im in between mathematics & mathematical economics for undergrad. </p>
<p>Sent from my SGH-T959V using CC</p>
<p>What do you mean by “bad reputation”?</p>
<p>If you look down, youll see a thread saying ywenty reasons ehy not to get a PhD, I have repeatedly seen on this forum people planning to hide their PhD for job interviews, etc. thats what I mean by.bad reputation. </p>
<p>Sent from my SGH-T959V using CC</p>
<p>From what I have “heard” the only reason companies are scared to hired PhD’s is because there is this notion that “they are just waiting for the right university job”.</p>
<p>There’s a lot of negativity on the internet. About everything. It’s more rare to find people in real life who would go out of their way to discourage you from getting a PhD. You don’t want to jump head first into a graduate program that will be essentially useless outside of the research sphere, but I think some PhD students are getting too much criticism for that. If you know anyone who enters a research intensive 5-year program because they think it will earn them tons of money, let me know.</p>
<p>A MBA holds no more or less prestige than a PhD, that is unless you got your MBA at the Big Three: Stanford, Harvard, Wharton. If you went to one of the many, and I mean many MBA programs, that aren’t highly ranked, you may be wasting your time. I would advise that you do a PhD in math, as financial institutions are falling over themselves to hire Math PhDs and Comp. Sci. PhDs. Who do you think writes all of those “complex derivatives” that the banks use to make money. But that is dependant on what grad program you go to. If you get your Math PhD at Harvard, Princeton, or some other highly ranked school, and work with a well know prof, you will have your choice at jobs. But if you go to a lesser know grad program, you may not be as successful. The thing about a math PhD is that you have to love math, no like really love it. You have to breath it and eat it. It must consume you. Because, lets be honest, math is one of the more difficult fields to get a PhD. You will need a perfect (or very near) Quant score on the General GRE, and a solid score on the Math GRE (which is a beast) to even be considered at low ranked schools.</p>
<p>You should pick a career based on doing what you love. I know from experience. I have seen too many MIT, and GT educated Chem Eng. find out that doing engineering as a job, is not as enjoyable as learning engineering. I have had several friends, all in engineering fields, leave well paying jobs, to go to law school, or to get an MBA. You will not be able to force yourself to wake up every morning for the next 30 years, and do a job you hate. You will crash and burn.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t call it a ‘bad reputation’ but rather something more along the lines of a preconceptions or stereotyping. People who earn PhD’s general share certain traits like independence, creativity, hard work, and perhaps quirkiness, all of which can be either good or bad depending on what positions you are looking at. It’s called a doctorate in philosophy. PhD’s are purposely trained to think outside the box, to think differently, go against the grain, challenge old ideas with new ones, to be leaders. If I was a hiring manager and had a position that desired these traits then, a PhD would be a positive. If I was hiring manager and was maybe looking for a team player who is good at taking orders rather than being a leader and someone creative, then a PhD may not be a positive trait for that position. We all stereotype and have our preconceived notions of things, even the “equal” opportunity employers. </p>
<p>It seems like many of the negativity online comes from people who assumes that higher degrees should automatically entitle them to having jobs. It so happens that it is a crisis that X% of doctorates are unemployed. Give me a break…</p>
<p>(o¬e) Yeah, im trying to go from CCC to UC Berkeley to UCLA 0_o, maybe it’s too much of a dream…ill see how it works out. But the good thing about UCs is that the PhD program and Masters program are combined…I think?!</p>
<p>Sent from my SGH-T959V using CC</p>
<p>Masters degree requirements are typically a subset of the Ph.D requirements, so they’re always “combined”.</p>
<p>. It’s more rare to find people in real life who would go out of their way to discourage you from getting a PhD</p>
<p>True, but that’s because (as I have discovered) people have a lot of misconceptions about what things a PhD affords you - especially salaries - and what the academic job market is like. If you talk to an honest PhD student, they will be frank with you that a PhD is not the best route for everyone.</p>
<p>Why do PhDs get a bad rap?</p>
<ol>
<li>There aren’t enough academic jobs for everyone who wants a PhD, and the ones that do exist require a willingness to live anywhere.</li>
<li>They take a long time to finish - typically 5-7 years.</li>
<li>Although they’re often touted as studying something you love, you often end up studying what your advisor loves or what your funding agency is willing to give you money for.</li>
<li>The salary payoff isn’t really that great compared to the time spent getting the degree.</li>
<li>Most jobs don’t require it, and it can sometimes actually be a liability.</li>
</ol>
<p>Here’s a blog about 100 reasons not to go to graduate school:</p>
<p>[100</a> Reasons NOT to Go to Graduate School](<a href=“http://100rsns.blogspot.com/]100”>http://100rsns.blogspot.com/)</p>
<p>This person is, of course, very negative about graduate school and it’s tinged with bitterness, but there’s truth to every “reason” she states (some of the reasons are repetitions or subsets of other reasons, IMO). I’m generally neutral to positive about my PhD experience and I still agree with most of the reasons. I would say you should only get a PhD if you have a burning desire to be a professor, OR if you want a research career LEADING a research team and designing your own experiments and all the jobs that sound good to you require a PhD (like developing pharmaceuticals, medical devices, doing military experiments, etc.) There are a lot of research support positions that only require master’s, and they have a surprising amount of autonomy (like statisticians, for example).</p>
<p>I would not say that people who earn PhDs share any traits besides perseverance and hard work, honestly. There are many different kinds of PhDs, departments, advisors, and situations, and you can get into one that doesn’t require a lot of creativity, for example, or a lot of independence. I think it’s also stereotyping to assume that PhD holders aren’t good at working on teams - it’s ridiculous, actually, since in some fields PhDs rarely work completely alone (in my field, a single-authored paper is rare; people typically work on research teams with others. I believe that’s the way it is in most applied/non-theoretical STEM fields and health science fields, so why anyone would assume that PhDs don’t know how to work with others is beyond me). I also think that scientists make much of how PhDs “challenge old ideas” but to be honest, in science often going against the status quo is not rewarded.</p>
<p>If someone is gritting their teeth through Grad School just for that eventual brass ring, they’re probably set up for disappointment along the way, perhaps even the level of bitterness in the above link. </p>
<p>The process of Grad School can be fun - A rather Bohemian life of the mind, reading books about things you’re really interested in, all of the activity that happens at a university community, interesting friends and discussions, perhaps trying your hand at some teaching. I enjoyed all aspects of Grad school (more than 10 years total) and wondered about colleagues who whined & complained after having tried so hard to be admitted. To those who relaxed and smiled at the miniature dramas that popped up, it was really a rather carefree life.</p>
<p>So, if it doesn’t effect career prospects as much as people think it would, could it be kind of a retirement plan? It sounds really fun but if it is really just postponing career and not advancing it Ild rather postpone my PhD. Would admissions people see this as sttange or, depending upon my job, a good thing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not impossible to do, but no one’s going to really support you to get your PhD as a retired person. A PhD is mainly an investment in order to create researchers. No one’s going to care about you as a 70 year old, since you have little to no time or ability to perform research.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To be more blunt than the above post, no dept. will accept a retired candidate, unless he or she makes clear that it is for some academic or research purpose that will be carried out beyond the taking of the degree. It is true that there are many non-traditional (older) students in doctoral programs, but the U’s expect those candidates to do something with the degrees that will bring some recognition to the U. The degree’s purpose (to the dept.) is not enrichment.</p>
<p>The process of Grad School can be fun - A rather Bohemian life of the mind</p>
<p>This is the fantasy of what graduate school is like. I have yet to meet anyone who actually thinks that getting a PhD is anything like a Bohemian life of the mind. The journey can be engaging, interesting, satisfying, and even exciting, but let’s not perpetuate the myth that we’re living the life of the mind. We have to pay bills and grocery shop like everyone else.</p>
<p>A department might accept a 70 year old PhD candidate if you are independently wealthy and agree to fund yourself. But generally speaking, PhDs are not about personal enrichment. You can always enroll in classes as a non-degree student and volunteer in a research lab if you just want to kick it.</p>
<p>I know this is an old post, but I thought I should respond anyway (in case anyone searches this thread). My opinion is that, at all levels of academia, there are two kinds of people: 1) those who are in academia to further their career and 2) those who are studying a subject primarily out of interest. (Please note that this is just a simplification used to illustrate something - the groups often intersect, and there could easily be more kinds of students than are mentioned here.) In any event, those who are interested in academia primarily out of interest are not always thinking of making XXX thousand dollars a year. They might enjoy studying English, economics, physics, computers, etc. for its own sake, and they need an academic environment to satisfy this goal - even if the payoff at the end of their degree is sometimes a career outside of academia. For the people who look at academia this way, a Ph.D. can be a springboard to doing research in their chosen field (a highly satisfying outcome for those with this goal in mind). Often, financial goals are sidelined to accomplish this goal (although it can definitely payoff even financially in the end). The other group, who is thinking more about using their degree to satisfy more career-oriented goals, often find no use for a Ph.D., because it is not directly related to the workforce (and can even set you back financially). <em>However</em>, this is not often the case for a master’s degree in this day and age, so they do not mind pursuing one to further their career. In any event, because of the conflict of interest between these two groups, you will hear different points of view about whether or not to pursue a Ph.D.; people who are not financially-minded cannot understand all the negativity about following this path, while the more career-focused group thinks of the degree as not practical, and therefore downplays the value of getting one (and therefore promote a master’s degree instead). If you read carefully, you will usually see undertones of these conflicting viewpoints on each respective side.</p>
<p>Anyway, that is my take on the issue. Like I said, it is somewhat of an over-simplification, but still a useful one, IMO, for explaining the situation…</p>
<p>those who are interested in academia primarily out of interest</p>
<p>It should read: those who are in academia primarily out of interest.</p>
<p>the more career-focused group thinks of the degree as not practical, and therefore downplays the value of getting one (and therefore promote a master’s degree instead)</p>
<p>It should be <em>promotes</em> not promote, and I should not have used two “therefores.” </p>
<p>(Small mistakes, but I can be OCD about grammar and style…)</p>
<p>Getting a Phd in math is idealistic to most of the world (ie not very practical, but beautiful)…Then all of the sudden your algorithm is able to successfully predict future stock market events and then you are a millionaire and a genius…It’s all about perspective! It takes time to get a Phd and if you want to teach full-time, at some point, then expect to be received as pariah at most “for-profit” companies who need your Phd to make money. Just be upfront about it and don’t lie…If you want some comfort then go Applied Math…It leaves many doors open.</p>