A Ph.D in Mathematics is the most difficult to achieve?

[flyingpig]

Is this true? I want a Ph.D in Physics, Mathematics, and perhaps Chemistry. Biology (if that exists) and Psychology if I have the time

 

[Klockan3]

You won't have the time to do even 4 phd's...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Many schools do not permit multiple PhD's.

At 8 years per PhD, you are talking 40 years to do this. What job do you want to do in the one year before you retire?

 

[JD88]

Many schools do not permit multiple PhD's.

At 8 years per PhD, you are talking 40 years to do this. What job do you want to do in the one year before you retire?

8 YEARS! I didnt even think most schools would let you stick around that long.

Unless you are counting the 4 years of undergraduate...

 

[kote]

8 YEARS! I didnt even think most schools would let you stick around that long.

Unless you are counting the 4 years of undergraduate...

Depends on the field and school. The one stat I can remember off of the top of my head is last year's Princeton Philosophy PhDs had a median time to degree of 7.0 years, not including any time spend in master's programs or at other schools. This isn't unusual in philosophy.

 

[stewartcs]

Many schools do not permit multiple PhD's.

At 8 years per PhD, you are talking 40 years to do this. What job do you want to do in the one year before you retire?

8 years? Surely some of the courses would transfer over right? I thought must Ph.D programs (in the US at least) were 54 credit hours (i.e. ~3 yrs).

CS

 

[kote]

8 years? Surely some of the courses would transfer over right? I thought must Ph.D programs (in the US at least) were 54 credit hours (i.e. ~3 yrs).

CS

I believe 3 years would be extremely quick for any subject. In philosophy, at least, no transfer credits are usually accepted at any school. Most of the time spent isn't on courses either.

Picking on Princeton again (they keep good stats), the median time to a physics degree for last year's grads was 5.5 years. 5.0 years was the median time in natural sciences. Of course these numbers only include people who actually finish.

http://gradschool.princeton.edu/about/docs/ratestable/tablea/PHY.pdf
http://gradschool.princeton.edu/facts/profiles/

 

[rubrix]

usually, masters and PHD for Physics is frozen into one, no? If so, 5.5 is fair.

 

[kote]

usually, masters and PHD for Physics is frozen into one, no? If so, 5.5 is fair.

Yes I believe this is true for most subjects. Usually you apply directly to PhD programs and master's coursework must be redone. Of course this varies and some schools accept transfer credit for some coursework. We're also assuming that all prerequisites have been met through a full 4 years of undergraduate work in the subject.

 

[twofish-quant]

It took me about seven years full time to get my Ph.D.

One thing that makes things difficult is that a Ph.D. simply cannot be timed. You are doing original, new work, and any time you do anything original and new, unexpected things will happen that will destroy your schedule. You do something for about three months, and then figure out that what you tried just will not work, so you do something else.

At the end of the process, you are trying to just get something minimal working.

Also it's pretty common in education administration and geology for people to spend a decade on their Ph.D. This is in part because you are dealing with working professionals doing their Ph.D. part time.

 

[jtbell]

Surely some of the courses would transfer over right?

Not between different fields, in general. For a physics PhD, you typically take graduate courses in classical mechanics, E&M, QM and maybe QFT, and thermo + stat mech, plus electives of course. Those required courses won't count anything for, say, biology, which probably has its own set of required courses.

 

[twofish-quant]

Those required courses won't count anything for, say, biology, which probably has its own set of required courses.

Also once you get one Ph.d. in one field, there is no real reason to get a Ph.D. in another field, even if you decide to do research in something totally different. If you want to do research in something totally different, you just do it.

 

[stewartcs]

Not between different fields, in general. For a physics PhD, you typically take graduate courses in classical mechanics, E&M, QM and maybe QFT, and thermo + stat mech, plus electives of course. Those required courses won't count anything for, say, biology, which probably has its own set of required courses.

True, but I was referring to the undergrad requirements with the understanding that most Ph.D programs were around 3 years duration. Hence, 2 or 3 years of the proposed 8 years could be transfer credit so to speak (again assuming the 8 years was inclusive of the 4 years of undergrad).

CS

 

[stewartcs]

Also once you get one Ph.d. in one field, there is no real reason to get a Ph.D. in another field, even if you decide to do research in something totally different. If you want to do research in something totally different, you just do it.

So you're saying you don't need a Ph.D to do research in a specific field as long as you have any type of Ph.D?

CS

 

[kote]

So you're saying you don't need a Ph.D to do research in a specific field as long as you have any type of Ph.D?

CS

Isn't this what anyone who does research on anything but their dissertation topic doing? It's also not uncommon to see professors with dual appointments based on research they've done in a different field since first obtaining a PhD.

 

[stewartcs]

Isn't this what anyone who does research on anything but their dissertation topic doing? It's also not uncommon to see professors with dual appointments based on research they've done in a different field since first obtaining a PhD.

That wasn't a rhetorical question.

So you are confirming his statement?

CS

 

[kote]

That wasn't a rhetorical question.

So you are confirming his statement?

CS

Well there will be social and funding barriers depending on the situation, but the PhD is granted mostly for one dissertation. It says that one piece of writing is PhD worthy. Of course you actually need to know enough about what you're researching to write something decent and that may take years to do if you haven't studied it specifically. Whether you have a math PhD or a condensed matter physics PhD I think you probably have about an equal shot at doing successful quantum field theory research, which is at least as good a shot as a quantum field theory grad student has.

I'm just giving my opinion though, and I'm not an expert. If you're looking for funding or prestige among peers you'll probably have better luck sticking to what you already have a track record with.

 

[stewartcs]

If you're looking for funding or prestige among peers you'll probably have better luck sticking to what you already have a track record with.

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.

CS

 

[eri]

Any research will be taken seriously, with or without a PhD. Journals will still consider it. Undergrads have published in the past - they certainly don't have a PhD, although they are probably working with someone who has one. And if your research makes it past peer review, people will take it seriously (but they won't if it doesn't). However, having the PhD is a big advantage - they basically train you in the specifics of your field, how to do research, and how to get it published.

To get back to the original question, yes, they offer PhDs in biology. As to which PhD is the 'hardest' to get, that's a hard question to answer. Apparently philosophy takes the longest on average, but I wouldn't call that harder than physics. 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. They want you to go work in the field and make them look good - you'll just look undecided. And the chances of you finishing all the undergrad requirements for all 5 or so PhDs in one go are pretty small, so you'd be adding more bachelors degrees to that list as well. In short, decide what you want to do with your life (besides 'accumulating degrees') and work towards the specific degree you need for that goal.

 

[TMFKAN64]

with the understanding that most Ph.D programs were around 3 years duration.

I've never heard of anyone getting a Ph.D. in three years. 4-10 years pretty much covers everyone I've ever met... and I only knew one guy who managed to do it in 4.

This maybe a computer science vs. physics or US vs Europe thing though...

 

[flyingpig]

I am taking AP courses and planning to do summer courses every year in university.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Please don't think "Ph.D." and "courses" in the same sentence. Yes, a Ph.D. student takes courses for a couple of years... but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Most of a Ph.D. program is doing research, not taking courses.

 

[eof]

I know someone who finished his Ph.D. at Harvard in just 3 years without a prior masters. Of course, doing it is very rare. :)

 

[twofish-quant]

So you're saying you don't need a Ph.D to do research in a specific field as long as you have any type of Ph.D?

You get your Ph.D. *after* you've proved that you can do research in a particular field. Once you get past the initial coursework of a Ph.D. program (which is more or less the equivalent of a masters), you should know enough to do research in that field.

 

[twofish-quant]

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...

You get your Ph.D. *after* you've convinced people to take you seriously. Once you understand what you need to have people take you seriously in one field, it's not terribly difficult to know what you need to do in an unrelated field.

People that review research have no way of knowing whether you have a Ph.D. or not. They can figure out if you've mastered the jargon and the concepts of a field.

 

[fan_103]

So many PHds lol U r MAD!

 

[twofish-quant]

And if your research makes it past peer review, people will take it seriously (but they won't if it doesn't).

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.

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.

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.

 

[f95toli]

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.

CS

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.

Last week I went to a talk by a professor at UCL (I think, it might have been Imperial). She started her career analysing the structure of metals, moved into microscopy and from that to using an environmental SEM. Environmental SEMs are very useful for to studying biological samples so that was a natural next step. That in turned lead to work on the texture of yogurt (I am not kidding) which as it happens has similar properties to some proteins found in the brain. Now she is doing research on Alzheimer's disease.

 

[eri]

I am taking AP courses and planning to do summer courses every year in university.

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.

Have you thought about anything else we said?

 

[flyingpig]

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?

 

[Saladsamurai]

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?

I think you really need to focus here. Ask yourself "Self, why the hell do you want 5 PhD's?"

I am assuming that you are in High School? Just chill out a little, do your best in your courses and see what you enjoy.

Whatever you like the most/are most interested in most do your undergrad in. Then maybe when you are in your 3rd year or so start thinking about grad school.

It's nice to see you are so enthusiastic about science, but you might want to just 'go with the flow' for a little while.

 

[flyingpig]

I don't think I can make it to even university.

 

[Saladsamurai]

I don't think I can make it to even university.

Now that's the spirit!

 

[flyingpig]

Now that's the spirit!

Lol...

 

[rubrix]

so this thread was a joke or what?

 

[Bourbaki1123]

flyingpig;

Do you understand that each branch of science has hundreds of distinct subareas? Saying you want a doctorate in mathematics is not really that precise...

Also, I think you might want to come to terms with the difference between a PHD and a masters. You can certainly get tons of masters at a couple of years a pop if you want, and you can certainly apply what you learn in those programs to your research, however; unless you are the next Ed Witten, multiple PhDs is kind of silly.

 

[flyingpig]

Why? Aren't Masters just intermediate levels? Are you saying there is actually no difference between a Masters and a Ph.D other than the name?

 

[boboYO]

What? He said that getting multiple masters was doable (because masters is mostly coursework), and that getting multiple phds is not feasible.

 

[flyingpig]

^But, I want a Ph.D. I just don't want a degree, I want knowledge!

 

[twofish-quant]

however; unless you are the next Ed Witten, multiple PhDs is kind of silly.

And even if you are the next Ed Witten, you need to realize that Ed Witten has only one Ph.D.

 

[irises28]

Is this true? I want a Ph.D in Physics, Mathematics, and perhaps Chemistry. Biology (if that exists) and Psychology if I have the time

You can't, you won't, and even if you did you would be worthless in all the fields.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

PhD's are about a**-tonnes of work for slave level wages, not brilliance and intellect. The only reason someone would put themselves through more than one would be for bragging rights. However, that person would almost certainly be extremely unsuccessful in their first field (since they spent the first 4-7 years of their post-grad life pursuing a PhD in another discipline) so would really have spent 8-14 years with nothing to show their peers.

Multiple PhD's are something that they say in TV shows and movies when they want to make the character sound "smart" so I could understand how you might think 4 PhD's is awesome. Unfortunately, the people responsible from these statements no absolutely nothing about science or academia. We're lucky if the average TV writer got an english degree from a no name liberal arts college. If you talk to people in academia and tell them you have multiple PhD's they're not going to go "ooooh" or "wow they're going to cock an eyebrow and probably think you're a little silly. Though that's not to say there aren't perfectly successful people with 2 PhD's but for those people the choice of 2 PhD's was almost always brought upon by a life crisis and a complete change in direction and interest, not 2 PhD's > 1 PhD.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also once you have a Ph.D., you probably are better off getting a Law, MD, MFE, or MBA since these will let you do things that you can't with a Ph.D. (like cut people open).

I know someone with a Ph.D., Ph.D., MD, MBA. Got the first Ph.D. in biology. Decided to get an MD (which allows her to cut people open) and got a research MD which had a Ph.D. tossed in for free. Then decided that she needed some business experience to work with biotech firms and got a working MBA.

 

[flyingpig]

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?

 

[twofish-quant]

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?

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.

Basically it's not hard to follow a recipe and someone with a masters has probably memorized the same number of recipes as someone with a Ph.D. But the Ph.D. can write a new cookbook with recipes no one has invented yet.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

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)

 

[UserName13]

Who here has a PHd in Math? How was it seen at your uni, in terms of difficulty, and compared to other sciences? Who has two PHds? Was math the tougher one?

 

[Bourbaki1123]

Bottom line:

If you want to learn everything, getting 40 masters will work...

So will getting one or two and reading a lot of technical works on your own. It's called being an 'autodidact'. I want to learn quite a bit about different areas of science, but my main interest lies between math and computer science (sort of mathematical logic and proof theory/automated reasoning, but also in pure math I enjoy algebra and algebraic geometry). I also think physics is neat. Guess what I can do? Go read a book for free and not shell out money for a masters program that will not give me any additional benefit.

If you want to add to the knowledge base and solve interesting problems, 1 PhD will do you. I guarantee you will not exhaust the field, the subfield, or the couple of sub-sub-sub-fields that you will be carrying out most of your research in.

 

[kote]

If you want to learn everything, getting 40 masters will work...

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.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

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.

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.
FlyingPig,
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you think you will gain by getting all of these PhDs? What are your interests? Is it that you feel like you can't pick one over the other? If so, a triple major might sort that out if you really want to put in the work. If you do well with that you will probably find there to be many areas of intersection where you can pursue topics that fall under all, or at least most, of your interests at once. You might also want to consider applied mathematics. You could do mathematical physics, mathematical biology, mathematical chemistry, etc. All of those lie in the domain of the applied mathematician.