anyone with a phd?

[terminator]

Also, how many attorneys do a "post-doc"?

Not a lot, but more than I would have expected pursued a LLM after getting their JD in some specialized subject -- tax seemed to be the most popular one. I think they are generally one year programs.

And I won't demean certain legal jobs by title/category, but there are jobs for JDs which are essentially low paying post-doc jobs. (Some for attorneys and some for JDs who failed the bar exam.)

 

[LOL!]

I always thought that "clerking" for a judge was similar to a post-doc position.

 

[cho oyu]

Occasionally, standard practice in a given department is to require the student to write up an M.S. thesis on the way to a Ph.D. That can add the few months necessary to write a thesis. I did that, as did every prior Ph.D produced by my department. As a result, technically my Ph.D. was awarded 3.0 years after my M.S. A 3-year Ph.D.? Yeah, right. Believe that if it makes you happy! :

Very good point. If one already had a separate master's thesis, I think the full PhD might run 4 years. Almost all departments only accept PhD terminal students and the master's can be obtained on the way for a bit more effort. I did the same as you, so I guess my PhD truly only lasted a little over 3 years

 

[cho oyu]

In the sciences this is very rare. In the US, PhDs in life sciences, chemistry, and physics do two or more years of a post doc work. I do not know about social sciences, English, humanities, etc.
Folks who take 9 years to yet a PhD in chemistry are real slackers and will probably never get a so-called good job. In the US, coveted NSF, NIH, and other graduate fellowships only pay for 3 years. You are expected to get out in 4 years, 5 at the top most.

I assure you, that I am employed in the field. I have been co-PI on NIH training grants. I do not wish to leave the impression to new graduate students that they should take 6-9 years to finish. They should try to finish in 4 years.

You are correct with postdocs in pure sciences; I have an engineering background and tend to project that bias

I'm not certain why the US government has retained that 3 year figure for fellowships. Far more competitive fellowships such as those from the Hertz Foundation are now 5 year grants. My thought is that, since the first two years of the PhD are mainly consumed by coursework, these fellowships allow an advisor to pay a student from research grants only after they are "producing".

I don't know if there are statistics on grad student tenure by school, but I think you might want to find some before continuing to call people slackers. Just a thought.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

Science and engineering Phds in top-tier schools are now averaging somewhere around six years; fields such as theoretical physics or chemistry average closer to 9.

I think you will find that, on average, a theoretical physicist receives his PhD in less time than the average PhD physicist. I believe the correct number for a theoretician is more like 4 years (of full-time study) after a bachelor's degree. Theoretical physicists, on average, tend to be brighter than experimentalists. They also don't have to spend years building and testing equipment to provide the necessary environment to do their research (e.g. low-temperature work).

 

[Nords]

While the pure pursuit of knowledge and research is a very noble and appealing prospect, getting a doctorate can be filled with politics, arbitrary advisors, strange dissertation committees, costs, time sacrifice, and all kinds of unpleasant hoops to jump through. You'll probably want to be crystal clear about your motivation and goals so that these compromises will be worthwhile in the end.

My master's thesis quenched my thirst for higher education.

So many retirees claim that they're going to go back to school or pursue professional certifications. I have no problem chasing down the knowledge required to get those sheepskins, but the sheepskins themselves seem worthless outside the context of employment.

I enjoy the process of learning but not the testing & certification. I much prefer the effort becoming an educated investor-- feedback is prompt, and the better you get the more gratifying the feedback!

 

[Milton]

toying around with the idea of pursuing a ph.d - it would be in a social science - just wondering what others felt about the experience.

You should definitely track down and read a copy of The Ph.D. Trap Revisited, by Wilfred Cude.

there is really only one school i want to go, there is one other i would apply to that I would consider...is that too risky?

If there is "really only one" place that you want, then by all means don't apply anywhere else ... what would be the point? Better not to enter any doctoral program (which calls for a significant commitment of time, energy and money) than to go where you "really" don't want to be.

I guess it depends in which field you get your PhD. My brother and SIL got their PhD's in history [Chinese and African respectively] from the University of London. They both got fulltime faculty jobs at US Universities fairly shortly after getting their degrees.

Alec - cho oyu's reference to European doctorates was surely intended to mean continental degrees, not British ones (no knowledgeable person would suggest that a D.Phil. or PhD. from Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, Oxford, Durham, etc. was not fully equivalent to any North American doctorate). Doctoral graduates in Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, countries of the former USSR, etc., are required to complete a habilitation before they are eligible for faculty positions.

 

[LOL!]

For your edification from a professional society I belong to:
"How long does it take to earn a physics PhD?"
http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/highlite/emp/figure14.htm

 

[Grep]

I have a Ph.D., and I am also a Professor.

First, Robert the Red's commentary is right on the money.

I have students come to me all the time who want to earn a Ph.D. The first thing I ask is "why?" The second thing I ask is "what will you hope to do afterwards?" The typical answer is something like "well, I've always wanted one," or "my father has a Ph.D.," and it trails off from there.

There are only two good reasons for going for a Ph.D. The first and most important is that you have a burning, unquenchable desire to learn everything there is to know about some topic. Not because you think it would be “rewarding,” but because you are completely driven. The second is that you wish to enter a profession (due to the first reason!) that requires a Ph.D. The latter, for most people, means that you wish to join a research University. Almost all other reasons are for the sake of vanity.

It is noble to wish to explore ideas and questions, and so you are approaching an adequate reason for wishing a Ph.D. However, if you came to my office and told me what you included in your post, I would gently suggest that you are not a good candidate for a Ph.D.

Since you are not in my office, and I feel you may be making a mistake, let me offer some fairly brutal comments and advice. I would invite you to consider that:

* You may not wind up studying the ideas an questions that you are actually interested in. You could easily wind up working with an advisor that has entirely different things in mind. He or she, not you, would likely set the agenda. You would feel pressure to consent or else spend a few years in the wilderness before giving up.

* You would come close to abandoning your family for 4-6 years.

* You and your family would suffer chronic penury during that time.

* You, like so many before you, may well suffer years of intense fear, loathing and every other negative emotion ever felt by man.

* You could spend a few years of wasted time before failing your preliminary exam and being ejected, or your qualifying exam, or your defense, or just plain having your advisor give up on you, etc.

Also, do you really want to move your family and subject them to all this so you can pursue your own rather vague sounding dream? You should think very carefully about whether this is an escape fantasy of yours or whether you - and your family - are fully committed to 4-6 years of toil, poverty, humiliation and potential failure.

Finally, publishing is a necessity. We at least hope that Ph.D. students are able to write reasonably well. Well, can you, punk?

My advice? Don’t try it! But best of luck if you do.

 

[LOL!]

I have often wondered where all the PhDs go after they earn their degree. Most of them certainly do not become university professors. I know that some of them sell life insurance, some of them are homemakers, some go to work painting houses (remember The Three Philosophers house painting company?), etc. But many of them work in industry, government and academia. Very few become professors.

 

[haha]

This is surely one of the strangest discussions/preoccupations for an ER board. If you love physics enough to go through all that crap, wouldn’t you want to keep up your career as long as you possibly could? And wouldn't you need to do that, merely to break even on all the time money and toil you invested?

Seems to me one needs to go either directly from a 4 or 5 year degree to a well paying job, or take a bit longer-DDS, JD, MBA and get a really- really well paying job. Or avoid the education thing altogether and buy or start a business.

Too easy for bad **** to happen in grants etc and then physicists become just really smart really frustrated people fighting all the Sikhs to get a place in the cab queue.

Ha

 

[bssc]

My dad got his PhD in three years by quitting his job with the State Department. These were the only three years that I lived in the US growing up. They moved in with my Mom's parents and did LBYM on their savings.

Of course, it helped him since he went on to work for another 22 years.

 

[Nords]

My dad got his PhD in three years by quitting his job with the State Department. These were the only three years that I lived in the US growing up. They moved in with my Mom's parents and did LBYM on their savings.
Of course, it helped him since he went on to work for another 22 years.

Or else he had to flee the country to escape his thesis adviser!

I remember watching a Navy O-4 come back from a meeting with her advisor, put her head down on her desk, and have a good cry. Never let an AI computer scientist parse your grammar...

 

[Texas Proud]

I have often wondered where all the PhDs go after they earn their degree. Most of them certainly do not become university professors. I know that some of them sell life insurance, some of them are homemakers, some go to work painting houses (remember The Three Philosophers house painting company?), etc. But many of them work in industry, government and academia. Very few become professors.

My former boss had a PHD in math and ran the real estate group... did not need the degree at all...

 

[bssc]

Or else he had to flee the country to escape his thesis adviser!

I think that he got along well with his advisor because he invested in said advisor's get rich quick scheme.

 

[cho oyu]

Alec - cho oyu's reference to European doctorates was surely intended to mean continental degrees, not British ones (no knowledgeable person would suggest that a D.Phil. or PhD. from Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, Oxford, Durham, etc. was not fully equivalent to any North American doctorate). Doctoral graduates in Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, countries of the former USSR, etc., are required to complete a habilitation before they are eligible for faculty positions.

Thanks for the additional info. I haven't had any English post-docs to work with, so I am not as familiar with the UK system as I am with continental Europe. I'm glad I put the caveat in my previous post

 

[cho oyu]

I think you will find that, on average, a theoretical physicist receives his PhD in less time than the average PhD physicist. I believe the correct number for a theoretician is more like 4 years (of full-time study) after a bachelor's degree. Theoretical physicists, on average, tend to be brighter than experimentalists. They also don't have to spend years building and testing equipment to provide the necessary environment to do their research (e.g. low-temperature work).

Ack. Give me a break. The self-selected survey population in LOL!'s post even gives an average PhD conferral time of approximately 6 years.

Some theorists get out earlier, some experimentalists get out earlier. Breaking down the theory into simulation and first principles, my experience has been that simulation can (depending on the availability of backbone coding) be faster. First principles, except for that amazingly exceptional few, takes longer. I think two far stronger correlations are school and advisor.

As to your premise that theorists tend to be brighter than experimentalists? I suppose I could offer up the unfounded premise that theorists are inveterate klutzes or that they have no concept of how to correlate empirical evidence with theory soas to to thrive as an experimentalist. But what's the point? Some experimentalists are brighter, some theorists are brighter. Why does it even matter?

 

[cho oyu]

My master's thesis quenched my thirst for higher education.

So many retirees claim that they're going to go back to school or pursue professional certifications. I have no problem chasing down the knowledge required to get those sheepskins, but the sheepskins themselves seem worthless outside the context of employment.

I enjoy the process of learning but not the testing & certification. I much prefer the effort becoming an educated investor-- feedback is prompt, and the better you get the more gratifying the feedback!

I certainly respect that opinion. I do think that a philosophical doctorate is a bit different than either a professional doctorate or a non-thesis masters (I don't know whether you did a coursework or thesis masters, so take this all with a grain of salt). Again, I'll be slanted towards science and engineering in my statements - it should make sense for a nuke, though

For several years, there aren't any tests, there aren't any courses, there isn't any certification. There is a lot of excitement at being at the cutting edge of science, you get to work with incredibly intelligent and dedicated people who are often the best in the world at what they do (and become one of them yourself), and you should have the chance to challenge your mental capacity on a daily basis. On the other hand, there is also lots of depression, lots of burn-out, and the question of why anyone with a remnant of mental capacity would allow themselves to enter into an unknown number of years of indentured servitude.

I don't know that I could do it again, but it is definitely an experience that can completely alter one's worldview.

 

[Toejam]

I have often wondered where all the PhDs go after they earn their degree. Most of them certainly do not become university professors. I know that some of them sell life insurance, some of them are homemakers, some go to work painting houses (remember The Three Philosophers house painting company?), etc. But many of them work in industry, government and academia. Very few become professors.

My brother-in-law, who has a Ph.D. in Theoretical (Astro) Physics, works for a large Defense contractor in Southern California. I remember he was working on A.I. (Articial Intelligence) several years ago. I have no idea what he is working on now, all of his work requires extremely high security clearances. Prior to receiving his Ph.D., I recall him mentioning that he had absolutely no interest in teaching or becoming a professor.

 

[Toejam]

Ack. Give me a break. The self-selected survey population in LOL!'s post even gives an average PhD conferral time of approximately 6 years.

Some theorists get out earlier, some experimentalists get out earlier. Breaking down the theory into simulation and first principles, my experience has been that simulation can (depending on the availability of backbone coding) be faster. First principles, except for that amazingly exceptional few, takes longer. I think two far stronger correlations are school and advisor.

I recall my brother-in-law (who has a Ph.D. in theoretical physics) mentioning that it is often the Advisor who has the strongest effect/influence as to when you complete your Ph.D.. I believe the subject matter of his doctoral dissertation was highly complex, but his Advisor (world renown physicist) also had a reputation of being very difficult to work with, which can slow things down quite a bit.

 

[LOL!]

The self-selected survey population in LOL!'s post even gives an average PhD conferral time of approximately 6 years.

FYI, the data was not self-selected. It comes from all US Physics departments who granted a PhD. These departments report the data. The actual person who earned the degree did not report the info.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

Ack. Give me a break. The self-selected survey population in LOL!'s post even gives an average PhD conferral time of approximately 6 years.

Some theorists get out earlier, some experimentalists get out earlier. Breaking down the theory into simulation and first principles, my experience has been that simulation can (depending on the availability of backbone coding) be faster. First principles, except for that amazingly exceptional few, takes longer. I think two far stronger correlations are school and advisor.

As to your premise that theorists tend to be brighter than experimentalists? I suppose I could offer up the unfounded premise that theorists are inveterate klutzes or that they have no concept of how to correlate empirical evidence with theory soas to to thrive as an experimentalist. But what's the point? Some experimentalists are brighter, some theorists are brighter. Why does it even matter?

I stand by my premise until you present data that actually refutes it. I think you will find, on a shool-by-school basis, that within a particular university the average theorist is smarter than the average experimentalist, and takes less time to finish his PhD. Of course, an experimentalist at Princeton may well be smarter than the theorist at Podunk U, who couldn't get into Princeton. In most cases, within a particular PhD candidate population, the students who write theoretical dissertations are smarter and better students within that population. Of course, there may be exceptions. That's why I said "on average".

 

[Grep]

The notion that one class of physicists is smarter than another is ridiculous, as is this whole off-topic conversation. The very definition of inteligence is too fuzzy to make that distinction. It would be more productive to talk about the relationship between hair color and intelligence.

Finally, who cares about such fine distinctions, even if they could realistically be made? I've been in so many rooms packed with so many physicists. They are ALL extraordinarily smart. But more importantly, I find them to be extremely engaging, interesting people who care about the arts, philosophy, politics, the world and yes, science.

 

[yelnad]

I always thought I wanted a PhD and eventually pursued it. I only applied to one program, which was one of the top in the country and the closest to where I physically lived. They recruited me heavily and fully funded me in a research assistantship. I attended for 2 years and completed all of my coursework. During that time I met and married my husband and my priorities changed. I no longer had interest in original research and I went back to working full time. I hadn't had nights and weekends to myself ever (due to grad school, my first two jobs, and then the PhD program), so the world was suddenly very different. So now I'm ABD, and I don't regret it at all.

In my line of work (higher education administration), the higher up the food chain you climb, the less student contact you have. Even if I had completed the degree, I wouldn't want a different job than I have now.

 

[bright eyed]

I have a Ph.D., and I am also a Professor.

First, Robert the Red's commentary is right on the money.

I have students come to me all the time who want to earn a Ph.D. The first thing I ask is "why?" The second thing I ask is "what will you hope to do afterwards?" The typical answer is something like "well, I've always wanted one," or "my father has a Ph.D.," and it trails off from there.

There are only two good reasons for going for a Ph.D. The first and most important is that you have a burning, unquenchable desire to learn everything there is to know about some topic. Not because you think it would be “rewarding,” but because you are completely driven. The second is that you wish to enter a profession (due to the first reason!) that requires a Ph.D. The latter, for most people, means that you wish to join a research University. Almost all other reasons are for the sake of vanity.

It is noble to wish to explore ideas and questions, and so you are approaching an adequate reason for wishing a Ph.D. However, if you came to my office and told me what you included in your post, I would gently suggest that you are not a good candidate for a Ph.D.

Since you are not in my office, and I feel you may be making a mistake, let me offer some fairly brutal comments and advice. I would invite you to consider that:

* You may not wind up studying the ideas an questions that you are actually interested in. You could easily wind up working with an advisor that has entirely different things in mind. He or she, not you, would likely set the agenda. You would feel pressure to consent or else spend a few years in the wilderness before giving up.

* You would come close to abandoning your family for 4-6 years.

* You and your family would suffer chronic penury during that time.

* You, like so many before you, may well suffer years of intense fear, loathing and every other negative emotion ever felt by man.

* You could spend a few years of wasted time before failing your preliminary exam and being ejected, or your qualifying exam, or your defense, or just plain having your advisor give up on you, etc.

Also, do you really want to move your family and subject them to all this so you can pursue your own rather vague sounding dream? You should think very carefully about whether this is an escape fantasy of yours or whether you - and your family - are fully committed to 4-6 years of toil, poverty, humiliation and potential failure.

Finally, publishing is a necessity. We at least hope that Ph.D. students are able to write reasonably well. Well, can you, punk?

My advice? Don’t try it! But best of luck if you do.

Geez, you phd types sure are a sunny bunch? Funny, I just got off the phone with my friend who is also a professor and said many of the same things...sheesh!

luckily i have time on my hands and will continue to talk with friends, people in the dept etc. also am looking at more professional masters programs if i can get the logical/ER part of my brain up and functioning again.

thanks for the honesty -