|
I am about to finish my Master degree and I'm thinking about getting an PhD degree just for the sake of the title. I'm an computer science student so a PhD degree are not that common for graduates to pursue, but i like the fact that I will know more and be more specialized than average graduates, which makes me, well ... special :D . And as for the career a PhD degree is not that bad if you are still young.
|
i want a Pimpin' Hos Degree...
but i've got to push harder first.
|
At the moment, I don't plan on getting one. Once I'm finished my diploma I'll be off to work for a while, then I plan on going back and bachelor degree in computer information systems with a major in network and telecommunications engineering. After that I think I'll be set. You never know though, if I'm extremely fascinated with my studies at that point in time I may pursue further.
|
On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight.
Wow, I'm sorry if this has been responded to already but I felt compelled to respond.
You do realize that currently Biology is probably the field making the greatest advancements? Its akin to the 1900-1970s for physics. And if you actually understood what a PhD is then you would know that a PhD is ANY field at ANY accredited University is absolutely pushing the boundaries of human knowledge.
Not to mention many PhD's are cross disciplinary and require work in fields other then the specific one you're focusing on.
|
If doing what's in that picture, pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, is a huge incentive/reward for you, then you might want to do a PhD. A PhD will do this, and train you to keep doing it. You must really love your field, and love studying it for its own sake. If this doesn't seem immensely rewarding to you, do something else. Other careers will reward you in other ways, and if those are more enticing rewards for you, go for it.
Also, web comics are good at making jokes, not accurately summing up graduate studies.
|
On September 14 2010 10:53 freelander wrote:I don't know much about PhDing (except my older sister is working on her final thesis), but I'm sure that you shouldn't read too much PHDcomics if you wanna stay motivated! ps. thx Mani for unbanning me . lol
Everyone else I know who's been accepted into a graduate program and has plans on doing a phd is super smug and this webcomic reflects that and is really terrible as well.
Still, I'm beginning mine next year and I do really look forward to it AND I'M BETTER THAN YOU, UNDERGRADUATE PROLE.
|
I just started a first year program for a chemical engineering PhD four weeks ago. Hardest shit I've ever encountered! Even finishing the homework is rewarding, so no huge complaints. I'll have my research topic in about a month or so, and then it kicks into even higher gear.
Funny you should post the comic. I was feeling down about class and found it last Friday. It's a damn good illustration.
survivingtheworld.net is another good one, especially the beginning where the guy is in grad school himself and making fun of it!
As for advice, it's all up to you. As an engineer I'm studying 30-40 hours a week (only 5-6 hours a day including classes and a little less on weekends). It is a major commitment, so be prepared to give up a bit of your free time to achieve the goal. In my field, a PhD sets you up to either be a professor or a researcher in industry (mostly).
I personally chose to go this route because I hated chemical engineering in practice (system optimization to turn profit). I'm really interested in environmental chemical engineering and wanted to do more, though few companies support it and few people will hire you with anything less than a masters. So, after about a year of consideration (taking a full fifth year to finish undergrad at that) I applied and now am living comfortably on full funding having my mind blown in classes Monday through Thursday.
You also quickly realize that no one around you is the bright genius you'd assume most to be (even the international students (their better math is compensated by the language barrier)). In reality all chemical engineering PhD students are normal people of average intelligence. One of my first realizations were "Wow, everyone is just like me!".
If you decide to go this route make sure you're taking it seriously (especially engineers). You need to know how you learn, pace yourself, and maximize your free time. I think the end product is worth it, so if you're an engineer you wants something more than an industry job, go to grad school!
|
Paladin Hunter DK
Someone had to do it
|
On September 14 2010 12:23 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 12:18 Thegilaboy wrote:On September 14 2010 12:14 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 11:23 Rev0lution wrote:On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight. Did you just take a dump on two entire fields of science? You make it seem like every man and woman on physics, math, stats and computer science is a genius contributing greatly so society and a phd student in chemistry and biology could be any moron straight out of high school. I did not take a dump at them. I think all fields of science are important. However sometimes I question the integrity of certain PhD degrees. Warning: Possible Bias Ahead: One example I see is psychology. While I think psychology is interesting and it's GOOD SCIENCE, I believe any iterate person who has taken Psych101 can read and understand a cutting-edge psychology research paper. Of course, there may be gaps, but it won't take more than a couple of days of googling to learn all the fancy terminologies. On the other hand, only those who are highly specialized in the subfield (which typically takes at least 0.5 - 2 years of intense studying beyond the undergraduate level) can understand a current research paper in mathematics. I think the difference between phd degrees in different field is huge. Frankly, I can't imagine how someone needs to spend 3-4 years to get a phd in psychology. Seriously, where is there to learn except some lab techniques? Frankly you learn to design experiences and do labs IN UNDERGRAD. Holy hell you made me angry with this post. As a current PhD student in psychology I can tell you that you are very, very mistaken with your understanding of the field and this specific graduate program at all. But, since I don't want to turn this thread into a flame war I will bite my tongue. Just please don't go making these sort of accusations without direct experience with that specific program. For instance, I would never assume I know enough about PhD programs in math or physics to make claims about their rigor. The problem is, in my university there are a lot of psychology research papers (done by tenured professors) printed on big, poster formats hanging on the wall. Sometimes I walk by the psychology department and I read some of them. Frankly it's pretty easy. They spent most of the paper illustrating their statistical methodologies, which are no more than a standard F-test.
Wait, did you really believe that research posters hung up in public areas reflect how complex these experiments and fields can be?
...you're in mathematics (where apparently theses of students require "true ingenuity") and you want to do your PhD?!?
|
in my understanding a PhD isn't solely about knowledge. it's about focusing on a task which is enormously exhausting and going through with it, thus attaining a higher overall control about your life and actions. so it's about learning discipline and expanding your cognitive functions. (in theory)
|
For some people, a PhD is proof of their intellectual prowess. People who have this mentality are typically more rigid and difficult to have open conversation with because they avoid situations that they are not prepared for and are less willing to approach things from many angles.
For others, a PhD is a constant search for knowledge. This type of mentality may have difficulty focusing on an end goal, but has a more flexible arsenal of skill sets to use for problem solving.
People who pursue a PhD as an identity tend to make significant foundational contributions to their field, while people who pursue knowledge tend to make significant contributions between different fields of research.
Of course, everyone is a mixture of these traits, but it is important to identify what motivates you early on in your PhD, and if your advisor is of a similar mindset. It is also important to try to avoid thinking about a PhD for personal monetary gain. A PhD by itself is essentially worthless. What counts is how you apply the knowledge you gained from your research, and the ability to balance your work/life schedule that necessarily develops as a result of your endeavors. If you are undisciplined during your journey, you will surely wind up miserable.
|
On September 14 2010 15:56 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 12:23 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 12:18 Thegilaboy wrote:On September 14 2010 12:14 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 11:23 Rev0lution wrote:On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight. Did you just take a dump on two entire fields of science? You make it seem like every man and woman on physics, math, stats and computer science is a genius contributing greatly so society and a phd student in chemistry and biology could be any moron straight out of high school. I did not take a dump at them. I think all fields of science are important. However sometimes I question the integrity of certain PhD degrees. Warning: Possible Bias Ahead: One example I see is psychology. While I think psychology is interesting and it's GOOD SCIENCE, I believe any iterate person who has taken Psych101 can read and understand a cutting-edge psychology research paper. Of course, there may be gaps, but it won't take more than a couple of days of googling to learn all the fancy terminologies. On the other hand, only those who are highly specialized in the subfield (which typically takes at least 0.5 - 2 years of intense studying beyond the undergraduate level) can understand a current research paper in mathematics. I think the difference between phd degrees in different field is huge. Frankly, I can't imagine how someone needs to spend 3-4 years to get a phd in psychology. Seriously, where is there to learn except some lab techniques? Frankly you learn to design experiences and do labs IN UNDERGRAD. Holy hell you made me angry with this post. As a current PhD student in psychology I can tell you that you are very, very mistaken with your understanding of the field and this specific graduate program at all. But, since I don't want to turn this thread into a flame war I will bite my tongue. Just please don't go making these sort of accusations without direct experience with that specific program. For instance, I would never assume I know enough about PhD programs in math or physics to make claims about their rigor. The problem is, in my university there are a lot of psychology research papers (done by tenured professors) printed on big, poster formats hanging on the wall. Sometimes I walk by the psychology department and I read some of them. Frankly it's pretty easy. They spent most of the paper illustrating their statistical methodologies, which are no more than a standard F-test. Wait, did you really believe that research posters hung up in public areas reflect how complex these experiments and fields can be? ...you're in mathematics (where apparently theses of students require "true ingenuity") and you want to do your PhD?!?
If someone hangs a research poster on physics and you have only taken first year physics before, do you think you can understand it?
|
On September 14 2010 16:35 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 15:56 Masamune wrote:On September 14 2010 12:23 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 12:18 Thegilaboy wrote:On September 14 2010 12:14 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 11:23 Rev0lution wrote:On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight. Did you just take a dump on two entire fields of science? You make it seem like every man and woman on physics, math, stats and computer science is a genius contributing greatly so society and a phd student in chemistry and biology could be any moron straight out of high school. I did not take a dump at them. I think all fields of science are important. However sometimes I question the integrity of certain PhD degrees. Warning: Possible Bias Ahead: One example I see is psychology. While I think psychology is interesting and it's GOOD SCIENCE, I believe any iterate person who has taken Psych101 can read and understand a cutting-edge psychology research paper. Of course, there may be gaps, but it won't take more than a couple of days of googling to learn all the fancy terminologies. On the other hand, only those who are highly specialized in the subfield (which typically takes at least 0.5 - 2 years of intense studying beyond the undergraduate level) can understand a current research paper in mathematics. I think the difference between phd degrees in different field is huge. Frankly, I can't imagine how someone needs to spend 3-4 years to get a phd in psychology. Seriously, where is there to learn except some lab techniques? Frankly you learn to design experiences and do labs IN UNDERGRAD. Holy hell you made me angry with this post. As a current PhD student in psychology I can tell you that you are very, very mistaken with your understanding of the field and this specific graduate program at all. But, since I don't want to turn this thread into a flame war I will bite my tongue. Just please don't go making these sort of accusations without direct experience with that specific program. For instance, I would never assume I know enough about PhD programs in math or physics to make claims about their rigor. The problem is, in my university there are a lot of psychology research papers (done by tenured professors) printed on big, poster formats hanging on the wall. Sometimes I walk by the psychology department and I read some of them. Frankly it's pretty easy. They spent most of the paper illustrating their statistical methodologies, which are no more than a standard F-test. Wait, did you really believe that research posters hung up in public areas reflect how complex these experiments and fields can be? ...you're in mathematics (where apparently theses of students require "true ingenuity") and you want to do your PhD?!? If someone hangs a research poster on physics and you have only taken first year physics before, do you think you can understand it?
isn't not being able to understand it worse? I'd want to share my knowledge with as many people as possible instead.
Sure if you do something that requires basic understanding of english to get a handle on it it's simpler than using fancy math equations and stuff but who cares rofl. I think it's stupid that they are presented as a way that is hard to understand unless you're in a specific niche. At least the public info.
i love being able to see info from a report and being able to understand in instead of going woah that sounds smart cuz i dont understand it, i think it's quite the opposite when someone presents something they know people wont understand.
You either like it or you don't. I think you're misunderstanding the depths of other areas and are some reason on a high horse because of fancy complex numbers and representations of data, at least that's how your posts are coming across. I've ever yet to meet someone i respect and consider worth while that wasn't overwhelmingly humble.
|
On September 14 2010 14:27 MadVillain wrote:
You do realize that currently Biology is probably the field making the greatest advancements? Its akin to the 1900-1970s for physics.
It is not at all like 1900-1970 in physics, the advancements are not really comparable. There is nothing in biology akin to theoretical physics, but they work a lot like people in applied physics. Applied physics is extremely important of course and is a foundation for most of the worlds GDP but it doesn't push the theoretical boundary in the same way even though it do indeed push the boundary of human knowledge.
Edit: And neither subject is more important than the other, it is just that they aren't comparable.
|
This thread reminds me of the one thing I hated most about college...There are just so many people who treat education as a pissing contest, arguing that this degree is more valuable/harder than that degree etc. If you ever find yourself thinking that your degree is better than another, then you're in the wrong field and are pursuing your education for all of the wrong reasons. You'll know you have picked the right field when you are comfortably immersed in adding to your knowledge without needing to justify your efforts or attempt to degrade others.
|
On September 14 2010 16:35 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 15:56 Masamune wrote:On September 14 2010 12:23 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 12:18 Thegilaboy wrote:On September 14 2010 12:14 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 11:23 Rev0lution wrote:On September 14 2010 11:12 illu wrote:On September 14 2010 10:59 Rev0lution wrote:
I'd have to say that, first of all a phD is not for everyone. For some, it's a way of not taking responsibility and just wanting to stay a student for many years. For others, a phD is their "now what?" moment. After you finish college, your life as a young person ends and for the majority of people it's time to get a fucking job.
And then there's those people who are just so motivated, specially in the sciences. I've met some pretty smart kids who really want to make a difference in their world and want to make their mark in their respective disciplines.
Personally, I could never complete a phD. The workload is overwhelming and the pay sucks. For some degrees like education a phD is highly recommended though and very much necessary.
Additionally, the phD market is saturated with top talent from all over the world. There are better career paths out there.
EDIT: phDComics makes getting a phD look like a getting a rectal exam. It looks like a downward spiral of depression and boredom. Funny you brought up phdcomics. I just want to say that although it's very funny, the views in the comics are largely biased toward phd students in biological sciences and chemistry. I believe those fields require so little technicality that doing a PhD in those fields is the same as doing a job as a lab technician for a PI. When you read their thesis it is really obvious that nothing fancy is going on - as just about anyone can understand it after spending two weeks on it on the relevant background information. Doing a PhD degree in mathematics, physics, computer science, and statistics is completely different from what phdcomic depicts. In those fields you are truly approaching the boundary of human knowledge and you really have to learn a lot in order to complete it. PhD thesis of students from those departments are highly original and they are mostly products of true ingenuity instead of sleeping in a lab for 2 years straight. Did you just take a dump on two entire fields of science? You make it seem like every man and woman on physics, math, stats and computer science is a genius contributing greatly so society and a phd student in chemistry and biology could be any moron straight out of high school. I did not take a dump at them. I think all fields of science are important. However sometimes I question the integrity of certain PhD degrees. Warning: Possible Bias Ahead: One example I see is psychology. While I think psychology is interesting and it's GOOD SCIENCE, I believe any iterate person who has taken Psych101 can read and understand a cutting-edge psychology research paper. Of course, there may be gaps, but it won't take more than a couple of days of googling to learn all the fancy terminologies. On the other hand, only those who are highly specialized in the subfield (which typically takes at least 0.5 - 2 years of intense studying beyond the undergraduate level) can understand a current research paper in mathematics. I think the difference between phd degrees in different field is huge. Frankly, I can't imagine how someone needs to spend 3-4 years to get a phd in psychology. Seriously, where is there to learn except some lab techniques? Frankly you learn to design experiences and do labs IN UNDERGRAD. Holy hell you made me angry with this post. As a current PhD student in psychology I can tell you that you are very, very mistaken with your understanding of the field and this specific graduate program at all. But, since I don't want to turn this thread into a flame war I will bite my tongue. Just please don't go making these sort of accusations without direct experience with that specific program. For instance, I would never assume I know enough about PhD programs in math or physics to make claims about their rigor. The problem is, in my university there are a lot of psychology research papers (done by tenured professors) printed on big, poster formats hanging on the wall. Sometimes I walk by the psychology department and I read some of them. Frankly it's pretty easy. They spent most of the paper illustrating their statistical methodologies, which are no more than a standard F-test. Wait, did you really believe that research posters hung up in public areas reflect how complex these experiments and fields can be? ...you're in mathematics (where apparently theses of students require "true ingenuity") and you want to do your PhD?!? If someone hangs a research poster on physics and you have only taken first year physics before, do you think you can understand it?
The purpose of a research poster is to make as much people as possible ''understand'' it.
|
On September 14 2010 16:51 Runnin wrote:
If you ever find yourself thinking that your degree is better than another, then you're in the wrong field and are pursuing your education for all of the wrong reasons.
You clearly haven't read any psychology, inflating the value of the things you choose to do is basic human nature. There would be something wrong if they didn't think that their field were better.
|
btw besides the few bad posts this is one of my favourite topics ever on tl! love the op and alot of good replies
|
On September 14 2010 16:58 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2010 16:51 Runnin wrote:
If you ever find yourself thinking that your degree is better than another, then you're in the wrong field and are pursuing your education for all of the wrong reasons. You clearly haven't read any psychology, inflating the value of the things you choose to do is basic human nature. There would be something wrong if they didn't think that their field were better.
I know many people who dont like their fields, could imagine better ones or cant study from different reasons. But I think both of you have a point there.
I will be satisfied when I will have MSc., MBA and PhD.  Then I will hopefully have a lot of money and the satisfaction that I made a small contribution to human knowledge. And it looks awesome on a business card.
I know there are better reasons but this is my mindset..
|
thank you for making me want to drop out of my school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
