So many PHds lol U r MAD!
Depends on the field. Also electronic networks are radically changing peer review. You don't need a Ph.D. to do research. You do need time and money.And if your research makes it past peer review, people will take it seriously (but they won't if it doesn't).
And there is really no point. Once you have Ph.D. research skills and you get curious about something else, then you just travel to conferences, buy books from Amazon, subscribe to papers, and start thinking.But as a PhD candidate in physics, I may be a little biased. But everyone else is right - your plan is not feasible. Very few institutions will consider accepting you for a second PhD, much less a fifth.
The "trick" is to gradually move over to a new field. Usually by applying methods you learn in the the first field to a problem in the second, Once you've established a reputation in the second field you can then go on and do something unrelated.That was my point. I can research a topic all day long if I won't without a Ph.D. However, would anyone take me seriously? Maybe...but probably not...Hence, I would really "need" a Ph.D to do research.
OK. Most colleges accept AP courses for credit (some don't, but will usually not make you retake it) so that might save you from taking a few intro courses if you do well on the AP tests. But it won't save you much time, and it may only get you out of 1-2 courses per major (and you're looking at 5 majors). Summer courses won't help much - you can't take too many at a time - and keep you from spending your summers doing research in your field, which is much more important for grad school than picking up a few extra credits.I am taking AP courses and planning to do summer courses every year in university.
I think you really need to focus here. Ask yourself "Self, why the hell do you want 5 PhD's?"Just that it takes a long time.....and I should give up on the five Ph.Ds...
Do yuo think I should just go for a Higher Doctorate in England for Physics and Mathematics?
Depends on the type of knowledge. In terms of "book learning" the answer is probably yes, since you get all your coursework done in the first two years. In terms of "doing learning" the answer is definitely not.In terms of knowledge, would someone who has a Masters in Physics have the same knowledge as someone who has a Ph.D in Physics?
Well I'm in my masters and I already have enough courses for not only my master but also my PhD. So all I'd really have to do is research and my comps for the PhD no "new" knowledge required. Though I'm a glutton for punishment so I'll probably take a tonne more courses in PhD as well (though they would by no means be necessary for my degree)In terms of knowledge, would someone who has a Masters in Physics have the same knowledge as someone who has a Ph.D in Physics?
Wrong. This will teach you a little bit about everything. People who stick to one subject for their entire lives are learning more about it each day and still don't even know everything about that one subject. That's why we do research.If you want to learn everything, getting 40 masters will work....
Alright. I guess I assumed it would be taken to be within reasonable bounds when I said 'everything', or that it would be ignored altogether, being that is was a a side comment leading up to my main point. Of course you won't know everything, it's impossible to do so. He just clearly has a drive to learn a lot about a wide variety of sciences, and I think that multiple masters would essentially give him what he thinks he wants; a lot of knowledge over a broad variety of topics. My point was that he will not gain anything more out of doing several masters compared to doing one or two masters and just committing himself to regular self study. In fact, he would save money doing the later.Wrong. This will teach you a little bit about everything. People who stick to one subject for their entire lives are learning more about it each day and still don't even know everything about that one subject. That's why we do research.