My Professor says I have no talent - should I persist?

[Erebus]

Hi everyone,
Could you give me your thoughts on the following?:
I am currently doing double major in math an physics, and doing pretty alright in both (although better in physics than in math). My long term goal is to get a PhD in pure math, because although I love physics, math has been my passion for some time (four years or so). I talked about this with my math advisor and he straight out told me that I have no talent in pure mathematics and that it would be wiser not to persist with it. He suggested that I focus on applied math or physics instead.
Thus far, I have taken 3 proof intensive classes: logic and set theory, geometry, and complex analysis. I'll admit, logic and set theory was difficult for me, and my performance was not stellar (B-). Geometry, was, however, by far the most beautiful math class I have taken - it came naturally, almost intuitively, to me. I am current taking complex analysis (taught by my advisor), and I am not doing that well (B- range, I expect), not because I don't understand the material or because I am incapable of writing proofs, but because I have not had that much time to devote to it (as I am in the midst of a hectic term).
Now, I love pure math, and I don't think I can see the rest of my life without it. However, the process of learning it has been akin to learning a new language. I feel that with more time and practice, I will get the hang of it.
My question is: Am I fooling myself in thinking that I can achieve my dream? Is it possible that no amount of love and dedication to the craft will be enough, and that I am simply, as my advisor says, not talented?

 

[hellbike]

And what is more important to you, doing what you love, or achieving certaing targets?

 

[waht]

My question is: Am I fooling myself in thinking that I can achieve my dream? Is it possible that no amount of love and dedication to the craft will be enough, and that I am simply, as my advisor says, not talented?

There is a difference between loving something and loving something bad enough. If you don't have a disciple to achieve what you want, then no matter how much you love something, you will not achieve it.

The adviser's job is to guide you in the direction of your choice. I suppose many advisers see that too many students fail, so that's why he suggested you shouldn't purse that path.

In the end, the only person that can truly answer this question is you. But one thing is certain, if you don't try you will never know.

 

[f95toli]

Is it possible that no amount of love and dedication to the craft will be enough, and that I am simply, as my advisor says, not talented?

I think the problem is that pure math is a very small field and unless you are VERY good at it and have a lot of luck (and yes, luck DOES play a role here) it is very unlikely that you will be able to compete in the field.
I might be wrong, but I suspect pure math is one of those fields where "natural talent" is actually considered to be quite important; whereas e.g physics is such a diverse field that most of us can find SOMETHING we are good at (string theory is very different from fabricating devices in a clean room).

I gues the questions you have to ask yourself are if a) your grades, loR etc will be good enough to get into into grad school and b) Once you have a PhD, what do you want to do afterwards?

Now, a PhD is under most circumstances never a bad idea and with a PhD in for example applied math you can certainly find a job , but I would imagine that it would be more difficult to find a job with a PhD in pure math. Also, the only place where you will be able to actually work with pure math is in academia.

No one but you can decide what to do, but maybe it would be a good idea to for example make sure that applied math or physics is still an option when it is time to apply for grad school? I.e don't focus so much on pure math that you burn any bridges.

 

[whs]

I find it odd that he would say you have no talent in pure math, when it is such a huge subject.

Who is mathematically talented in pure math? I know my fair share of Statistics but I felt like I had to work way to hard in analysis to just simply 'half understand' it.

Its like saying the new car you bought is worthless because it won't drive off road very well. Well maybe that car can drag race, or reach a high top end speed etc. (Horrible analogy, but you get the point)

You definitely aren't fooling yourself. Love and dedication to the craft is what gets you there. Natural talent is nice, but I have seen so many people with very high natural talent throw it away from athletes to academic types. And if you love math, then you probably have a fair amount of talent in it already.

Keep truckin'.

 

[General_Sax]

It's always good to have a backup plan.

 

[KayVee]

I would ask my self, what I will be doing in the future. If your goal is academia, I guess a PhD is good and mandatory, but if you're just looking for work in your field, you could probably do just as well with a masters, as a PhD.

 

[ZComet]

What a disappointment. I expect academicians to know better that it is persistence rather than talent that leads to success. Without fail this applies to every single situation throughout history in the entire world (but of course discipline and proper guidance is also key).

I too had the same situation where my relatives, so-called "friends", and my professors keep telling me that I won't make it in pure maths because it's too hard, too few jobs, too boring, too intense yadda yadda. I might be too young to fully comprehend the realities of life, but I do know one thing, is that if you keep paying heed to what other people say, you will never get anywhere in life.

You guys should watch this particular clip from the film Rocky Balboa. It illustrates my point beautifully. "If this is something you want to do and if this is something you got to do then you do it. Fighters fight."

 

[glueball8]

 

[n!kofeyn]

I think you should tell your professor to buzz off (not literally) and to find another one (literally). It is unproffessional to tell a student that he hasn't enough talent to pursue the career he/she wants. You need to find another advisor that will guide you instead of telling you to settle for something else.

Now on the other hand, I would say that a B average in your math classes is indeed a little low. I think, like others have mentioned, you do need to evaluate what you want to do and then change your goals to reflect that. If you aren't doing well in your math classes because you have a hectic semester and pure math is what you want to do, then you need to cut down on your hours or do something so that you can concentrate on your math courses more. Don't think that you can just wait around and then it will click once you've done enough math. Focus yourself on the task at hand and learn the material as thoroughly as possible, and this will pay off greatly.

Mathematics relies on hard work, dedication, and imagination. Now talent can aid your studies, but it isn't a requirement, in great contrast to what f95toli said. Please read the following http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/gowers/gowers_VIII_6.pdf" of some very good professional mathematicians. I myself do not have a natural talent for mathematics. During my undergraduate years, I found engineering and physics to come much easier to me than my abstract mathematics courses. You have to train your mind to work in more abstract terms, and each person must come up with their own methods to overcome this.

 

[Shackleford]

Is a "B" average really low, especially in math and physics?

 

[rubrix]

well B is a 3.0 GPA, while it isn't "really low" it isn't exciting either.

 

[Shackleford]

"Is a "B" average really low, especially in math and physics?"

no.

Thanks. My question was induced by n!kofeyn's post.

 

[n!kofeyn]

Is a "B" average really low, especially in math and physics?

Yes. A B here and there in a course is okay, but I don't think one should be satisfied with a B average. By what the original poster said, their average is more like a B- in the higher courses, which are what matter. They do need to improve upon this or else it will be difficult to get into a decent graduate school.

The fact that it's math and physics doesn't really even matter. Having an a B- average in your course of study isn't good, no matter what it is.

 

[Erebus]

Hi guys, thank you for your responses - you have been incredibly helpful and encouraging. Just to clarify something, though, my average in math is not a B- - it is more along the lines of a 3.8 - it will probably go down to a 3.7 after complex analysis, though :(

 

[rasmhop]

To the OP: don't give up, but realize that very few people become professors and make sure that you have a backup plan. Make sure that you think about how you study. Maybe you're taking too many courses which means that you don't really learn any of the subjects well. Maybe your study techniques are ineffective and you should revise them. Maybe you don't really have the prerequisite knowledge (A passed mark is not always enough, you need the knowledge too). This is stuff you should be able to talk to your advisor about, but if he actually said you're not cut out for pure math I doubt he will be of much help. I would recommend you to find another advisor if possible, and make sure to do some introspection about why you're performing below your expectations.

One important thing is: you need to make time. If you can't I would be forced to agree that a career in pure math would be hard to achieve. I don't think your grade in complex analysis is the most important thing, but if you pass the course and move on to harmonic analysis, operator algebras or something else requiring complex analysis and you aren't completely comfortable with the stuff from complex analysis it could jeopardize any attempt to learn. Making sure you have the prerequisite knowledge for a course is extremely important, and students often overlook it because they got a C in that class by cramming the night before the exam or they once knew a bit about the subject, but has now forgotten it, and they then never think to take out their old textbooks and do some refreshing. If you really want to do pure math, then good for you and go for it, but remember that you need to be serious about and set aside plenty of time.

Is a "B" average really low, especially in math and physics?

Depends on uni, course and your goals. There are a lot of undergraduates taking math courses, but not as many applying to graduate schools in pure math. It's usually the top students who apply to graduate school, so even though an average of B+ in math is above average at your university, it may very well be below average at the graduate schools you apply to and may even be considered bad. Also remember that some non-majors may take these courses and force the grade up for majors. I was for instance recently enrolled in a "Discrete Mathematics" course for math and CS students. About 75% of CS students got below average grades (a new record fail-rate of 32% for CS, but 7% for math). Thus for a math major B wouldn't really be good compared to other math majors.

 

[flyingpig]

Let's see, listen your bastard advisor or follow your dreams? hmmmm

 

[flyingpig]

I lol'd

 

[Troponin]

I'd be interested in seeing the full context of that conversation. If he said it with the implication that you seem to be more talented in Physics and would make a better contribution there than mathematics, I would appreciate his insight and keep it in mind when I made my decision.
If he really just blurted out that I had no talent and should do something else...I don't know that I could leave his office without a little extra tension between us.

You have to make your own decision of course, but I'd definitely take a good look at what he said and why he said it.

(for the record, I'm fully on the "do what you love" side of things. There are many times to be practical in life, but I couldn't devote my life to a field I wasn't interested in when there was something else out there that I loved.)

 

[flyingpig]

Wait, is this a money issue?

 

[n!kofeyn]

Hi guys, thank you for your responses - you have been incredibly helpful and encouraging. Just to clarify something, though, my average in math is not a B- - it is more along the lines of a 3.8 - it will probably go down to a 3.7 after complex analysis, though :(

Oh, sorry. I think I misread a little also. I thought you had said you had made a B- in both set theory and geometry, even though you liked it. My mistake. If you are making a 3.8 in your math classes, then that makes your advisor's statement even more ridiculous. I would very seriously request another advisor or ask another professor who you like to be yours. I think jerk professors like this probably forget about when they were a student and just learning. Some like to idealize how good they were, and they even like to idealize how good they currently are. For me, this seems to be quite a disease among many university professors. I think many believe giving advice means to condescend.

I would say to work extra hard in your complex analysis class, not only to improve yourself mathematically but to show him up. :) Finding motivation in mathematics is a key component in learning it.

 

[Erebus]

Wait, is this a money issue?

Nope, it's not a money issue at all. In fact, I would be more than happy with minimum wage as long as my job involved lots of math in an intellectually stimulating environment.

 

[flyingpig]

Nope, it's not a money issue at all. In fact, I would be more than happy with minimum wage as long as my job involved lots of math in an intellectually stimulating environment.

If money isn't a problem, then forget about him...

 

[Shackleford]

Nope, it's not a money issue at all. In fact, I would be more than happy with minimum wage as long as my job involved lots of math in an intellectually stimulating environment.

I would say that's a bit of a naive statement, but perhaps you're using hyperbole to stress the fact that your primary motivating factor is to do what you love.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think you need to ask yourself two questions:

(1) Could your professor possibly be right?

(2) If so, do you care?

You might answer the second one first.

There has been a lot of advice along the lines of "if you really love it, you can do it." I think one needs to take this with a grain of salt - we don't have millions of professional athletes or astronauts. I would disagree with the statement "talent is everything", but I'd also disagree with the statement "talent doesn't matter". In any event, I think you need to think about your priorities - you talk about "love and dedication", but you also say that you don't have the time to devote to this because you're taking other classes.

 

[vanesch]

It is very difficult to tell whether your professor is a jerk or was giving you honest advice - it all depends on the context. In any case, he should have explained to you what made him say that. There's no point in telling anyone bluntly "you don't cut it".

Maybe his point is that there are very few jobs in pure math, and that the few that make it, are hot shots who had A++ all along. In that case, his advice is to be considered, in that your talent can be more rewarded in other things than pure math, but rather in other math-like fields where being a hot shot is less important.

A bit like "should I aim for the Olympics, or become a sports coach" ? If you are good at sport, but you're not spectacularly good, then it might be a good advice to say: "don't aim the Olympics, but you'll make a great sports coach or sports teacher".

Or maybe it is an arrogant jerk who gets his kick from being condescendent.

Hard to tell.

 

[f95toli]

Mathematics relies on hard work, dedication, and imagination. Now talent can aid your studies, but it isn't a requirement, in great contrast to what f95toli said.

I think you should re-read what I wrote. What I wrote was that in pure math (as opposed to applied math or for example physics) "natural talent" is often considered to be important. Whether that is true of not is actually not that important if the people who will decide if they will accept you as a PhD student believe it to be.
I don't know enough about the "politics" of math to say for sure, but it seems quite a few of the people who end up working in pure math showed some ability at a relatively early age by for example participating in the math Olympics and so on. This does not seem to be the case with applied math (I went to university with a couple of guys who ended up in applied math).

The main point is that pure math is a small field, few people get accepted as PhD students and only a small percentage of those are then able to actually able to work as mathematicians at a university. In order to be one of those you will obviously have to work hard (but that is true of all fields) but not even hard work can -despite what some people would like to think- ever guarantee that you will succeed. If for example the politicians decides to cut funding to your particular area just when you need to find a new position you are almost certainly out of options, regardless of how good you are or how hard you have worked.
Hence, luck certainly plays a role which is why you should always have a backup plan.

 

[twofish-quant]

Let's see, listen your bastard advisor or follow your dreams? hmmmm

Find another professor.

 

[qspeechc]

A story which may or may not be relevant here:

In my sophmore year I went to a student advisor, I was doing averagely in my classes. He basically told me, in a subtle and friendly manner, that I had no chance of acheiving my dream of getting a PhD in mathematics. End of my junior year, I have topped two of my math classes. I was motivated to work harder, and I went from middle of the class to near the top.
Actually, I don't really care so much any more if I get my PhD or not but there you have it. HArd work gets you places, and I know from experience.

EDIT: btw, this same advisor strongly advised me to take a certain course, I did, and I hated the course.

 

[twofish-quant]

There has been a lot of advice along the lines of "if you really love it, you can do it." I think one needs to take this with a grain of salt - we don't have millions of professional athletes or astronauts.

If you really love it, you are better off if you try than if you give up. We don't have millions of professional athletes, astronauts (or tenured physics professors), but my experience has been if you have large numbers of people trying to be really, really good, than you'll end up better off than giving up.

OK, you train to be a professional athlete, and you didn't make it. Boo-hoo. I bet that you are a ***lot*** healthier and probably a lot happier than if you sat in front of a television eating potato chips all day.

I would disagree with the statement "talent is everything", but I'd also disagree with the statement "talent doesn't matter".

It really depends on the field. My view is that at very, very, very high levels of mathematics, everything has to go right for you to win. You have to have the right genes, right parents, right environment, right schools, right everything. Anything goes wrong, you are out of that game, and some most of us are flawed in some way. But there are other games involving mathematics. One thing that I've noticed is that people that are super-brilliant at mathematics make *horrible* math teachers. Also great mathematicians often make dreadful physicists, and one of the problems with high energy physics theory is that it's dominated by people that are a bit too good at math.

Also "talent" may be a bad thing sometimes. I have a very, very emotional and obsessive personality which is *great* for doing physics problems. because I can spend years thinking about a problem without getting discouraged. It' can be awful for other things.

 

[QuantumOne]

 

[Erebus]

A story which may or may not be relevant here:

In my sophmore year I went to a student advisor, I was doing averagely in my classes. He basically told me, in a subtle and friendly manner, that I had no chance of acheiving my dream of getting a PhD in mathematics. End of my junior year, I have topped two of my math classes. I was motivated to work harder, and I went from middle of the class to near the top.
Actually, I don't really care so much any more if I get my PhD or not but there you have it. HArd work gets you places, and I know from experience.

EDIT: btw, this same advisor strongly advised me to take a certain course, I did, and I hated the course.

Thank you! This is very encouraging. Yes, this is essentially what happened to me. Except that I am now at the beginning of my junior year, and have not reached the nice part of the story yet.
I suppose that advisors are not always necessarily right. I guess I took his comment to heart because my advisor is someone I really admire and have a lot of respect for. He is the most demanding teacher I have had thus far - I was excited by the prospect of the challenge he would provide. I have not yet developed the insensitivity to failure and rejection that I need to deal with my current issue, though. Hopefully, this will come with time.

 

[Gear300]

You know...I'd have to say that more than 90% of the people who take up on mathematics are not "talented" at it. The quality of the work they publish, and they probably also know this, is most likely not of "epic-scale" and is very much so comparable to the work of most others (though I didn't say it was "unimportant"). Looking at the subjectivity of words can be helpful.

 

[qspeechc]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index.htm"

The most important factor in determining success in some field is the amount of work you put in.
I was not trying to show off or be arrogant in my previous post. I'm not a bright guy. My parents aren't too bright either; my mother dropped out of high school in grade 10, my father is an engineer. I did pretty well in high school, and then average in the first two years at university. I have been in classes with some of the brightest undergrads at my university, people who did 10 times better than me in high school, being among the best in the country, and at university. I just decided in my junior year that I was going to start working hard. I had no social life, I just worked my butt off, and now I'm one of the top math students. I just want to tell you to persevere. If you have a passion for something, and you want to succeed in it, then just work hard at it. Ok, maybe you won't become a mathematician, so what? You did what you enjoyed, and now there's a whole exciting world of mathematics you can study by yourself in your own time.
I feel like I'm a bit preachy, anyway what have I done? I'm just another undergrad, an here I am trying to give advice

 

[twofish-quant]

Mathematics relies on hard work, dedication, and imagination. Now talent can aid your studies, but it isn't a requirement, in great contrast to what f95toli said. Please read the following http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/gowers/gowers_VIII_6.pdf" of some very good professional mathematicians.

Also talent is not a binary quantity. I do think that there is a range in innate mathematical ability. Some people just need more time and effort to grasp a concept, and in my situation, I've made up for the lack of ability with more effort. One reason I didn't become a mathematician was that inventing mathematics was for me painful work as opposed to using mathematics which is fun work.

The other thing is that people that *do* have innate mathematical talents have to be very, very careful especially during their undergraduate years, because talent can be a curse as much as a blessing. One thing that people have noticed about professional writers and it the really, really good ones have an extremely high incidence of bipolar disorder. Among theoretical physicists, there seems to be a very high incidence of close family members with schizophrenia.