<p>and do you think that if I majored math then I could float around at various grad schools and live on my phd stipend until I was satisfied learning about the different subjects?</p>
<p>I completed four degrees (2 each undergrad and grad) in three different engineering disciplines and went halfway thru a fourth, spending a stunning 14 years in college. Eventually reality came calling in as I realized I was getting way too overqualified. In the industry world, nobody really cares about things like these, you just get to impress people with knowledge of things from prestressed concrete and algorithm analysis to microprocessor design and experimental psychology :-)</p>
<p>Enjoy it while it lasts.</p>
<p>The entire goal of a PhD is to specialize. If you want to get a very broad education then you’re going about it wrong.</p>
<p>You could possibly transfer from one PhD program to another in say the first two years. But I think that third switch would be pretty unlikely. And regardless of how many programs, possibly not be able to take more than a few years of tuition free coursework nor be able to take unrelated coursework with no relevance to your thesis or research interests. As Racin says, its supposed to be specialized. And the goal is to produce research. </p>
<p>But you might hang on a long time in one place, if you don’t mind being a largely powerless and very poorly paid teacher of a ton of classes, usually with the worst schedules. Not sure that is what you are looking for though.</p>
<p>It’s totally possible. Just rather expensive.</p>
<p>Why do you think that you can only learn things in a formal classroom situation? The only person who can stop you from “renaissancing” yourself in your free time once you are out in the world is you.</p>
<p>It is possible at some schools to take course work, for free, in other fields while pursuing a PhD. Someone I know has taken a large number of classes in a couple of different fields while doing lab work research for a PhD. Some might see this as a good idea. Some will not. If you end up at a university, it will probably be possible to at least sit in on or audit classes the rest of your life.</p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with a broad education. It’s great in fact. But at some point you need to focus.</p>
<p>In school, in work, and in life, you don’t get much credit for what you start. You get credit for what you finish. If your record of achievement begins to look like you are an academic butterfly, flitting from flower to flower, it won’t be long before no one, particularly no potential employer, will take you seriously.</p>
<p>Unless you specialize in skin diseases of purple squirrels, and purple squirrels become a popular pet, chances are you’ll never make up the ‘lost’ time/money going after multiple degrees. I’m speaking from experience here. </p>
<p>At some point you will be asked to choose, or forced to choose, and once you go down one path doing the interdisciplinary or Ren-man gig is not going to be feasible. </p>
<p>If you focus on the wrong thing, or the ‘it was hot then but not today’ thing, you’ll be about as useful as a COBOL expert looking for work in a sea of .NET openings. That’s the reality part of the game.</p>
<p>Understand that in the Renaissance it was a lot easier to be a Renaissance man, because:</p>
<p>(1) You could know everything there was to know, and that was not quite as much as, say, a junior at Exeter, or a sophomore at St. John’s College, knows.</p>
<p>(2) There was a lot less competition. Most of your intellectual peers died of infectious diseases or post-traumatic bleeding to death syndrome. Firstborns, females, non-Europeans, and anyone not in the top 5% or so by wealth, were excluded from education. No one at all went to Harvard; it wasn’t there. If you were one of the lucky few not hobbled by those rules, developing a local reputation for brilliance was a piece of cake.</p>
<p>(3) People may have considered you a blowhard idiot during your lifetime, but as long as you remembered to leave a few manuscripts around your reputation was golden. And no one fact-checked claims of your feats in battle.</p>
<p>Did you notice that unlike HS you are required to focus on one (or two) fields- you need a major to get a bachelor’s degree. You do have breadth requirements in addition to the depth of your major, but you get that degree by proving you studied much more of the subject than others. “B— S—” degree. Can follow it with More S—, or Piled Higher and Deeper degrees.</p>
<p>JHS and others- excellent points. btw folks- how useful to society were those Renaissance men? There were so few of them and so little to know… Everyone who learns what is taught in school up to HS graduation probably knows as much about as many subjects as those who were leaders back then.</p>
<p>You wouldn’t be qualified for almost all PhD programs without majoring, or at least almost majoring in, the particular field. There are too many much more qualified students out there competing for those stipends as well. Math in particular is brutally competitive. Some or many fields won’t give students any money/freebies such as reduced tuition et al either. Majoring in math only qualifies you in that and related subjects. No different than being an English major and attempting to float around…</p>
<p>Being a “renaissance” person (not limited to men now) is a lifelong self educating process. In order to pay for it you need a source of income- in today’s world that most likely means a job (research those from the Renaissance time period- how many had independent wealth?). You may be surprised at how many professionals do have passions for many other fields they pursue in their off work hours.</p>
<p>How useful to society were those Renaissance men? Ummm, Leonardo da Vinci? Not such a slacker. Lorenzo de Medici? Garcilaso de la Vega? Francis Bacon? Thomas Wyatt? Martin Luther? Some of them may have been plus-minus, but I think they contributed some to society!</p>
<p>I think modern many “Renaissance Men” tend to regard themselves as a sort of academic Jack-of-All-Trades. But a better description would be Jack-of-No-Trades.</p>
<p>I know plenty of people who are highly accomplished in narrow, specialized fields and also what you’d call Renaissance men (and women:) a computer science professor who builds sought-after cellos in his basement workshop; a literature professor who tutors high-level math to relax; a doctor who danced (and taught) ballet throughout his medical school training; a renowned professor of medicine who writes best selling novels; an economics instructor with a PhD from a Top 5 university who publishes acclaimed poetry. The list goes on. Renaissance men exist to this very day - and many of them hold PhDs.</p>
<p>
I paid a pretty penny for a huge collection of the Inca Garcilaso de la Vega in Spanish for my Peruvian wife. Is this the same person? I didn’t think anyone else had ever heard of him. Also some clown named Ricardo Palma cost me a bundle.</p>