Programs Can Earning a PhD Require More than Just Scoring in the Top 2% of Contests?

[andytoh]

Doing contest questions does not nessary imply you can do higher-order questions.

But contest questions ARE higher-order thinking questions.

 

[P3X-018]

I think what people are trying to say, is that just because you can't do well in a contest doesn't imply that you'll never get a PhD.

 

[andytoh]

My point is that I've known people who spent 5+ years trying to earn a PhD, but at the end could not come up with anything good enough. They believed from the start that because they got good grades that they could automatically earn a PhD through more years of work. I think they should have used some other kind of indicator than just their grades. There are 80+ PhD math students in my university and about 8 graduate per year with their PhD's (80/5=16 so about 8 walk out with nothing).

The most accurate indicator, of course, is to go ahead and try to earn your PhD, but the cost is great (wasted years and money) if you don't make it. Instead, perhaps if they should first test themselves with something at a smaller time-scale (e.g. a contest or some small research project like a previous post suggested). This is an idea: before reading the next chapter in your textbook, close your book and YOU try to come up with some theory on your own for the next few days about the subject you are reading. Then compare your findings with what you read in the next chapter. How good were your findings?

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

My point is that I've known people who spent 5+ years trying to earn a PhD, but at the end could not come up with anything good enough. They believed from the start that because they got good grades that they could automatically earn a PhD through more years of work. I think they should have used some other kind of indicator than just their grades. There are 80+ PhD math students in my university and about 8 graduate per year with their PhD's (80/5=16 so about 8 walk out with nothing).

The most accurate indicator, of course, is to go ahead and try to earn your PhD, but the cost is great (wasted years and money) if you don't make it. Instead, perhaps if they should first test themselves with something at a smaller time-scale (e.g. a contest or some small research project like a previous post suggested).

What if a brilliant individual 'tests' themselves with something that has no empirical foundation for determining phd success rate, such as a math contest. What if doing poorly discourages them from continuing further and prevents a brilliant person from making a contribution?

What if in the past we decided phd success rates through math contests and people like einstien, fermi or bohr never got their phd's (not suggesting they weren't amazing mathematicians, I was just grabbing random names)?

Perhaps a better indicator (which was already mentioned) is to try your hand at real, open research problems and see how well you can do. I would think working on those as opposed to winning a contest, would be more beneficial. We are all in agreement with you that winning university level contests is a good indicator of one's problem solving abilities but I don't think it is a pre-requisite or even necessary to assume it is even relevant.

I feel that to many people get attached to tests and contests as indicators of specific capacities for intelligence and thinking without considering the lack of empirical support.

You are doing an empirical science so it might be beneficial to begin thinking like an empiricist and stop conjecturing.

You seem like a brilliant guy with a lot of potential so I don't see the hang-up on these contests, which I think you said you perform extremely well in. Or perhaps I am anxious that I might not get a phd because I don't even know how a math contest works.

I won debate, wrestling and lacrosse championships in high school, will that grant me a phd? (Again, andytoh, just messing with you homie! Intonation is lost when translating from text to oral in your head, so I am making sure you get the sarcasm).

 

[SeReNiTy]

I believe there is truth in what Andy is writing about. I have seen many students at my university work very hard, and obtain near perfect GPA's. Unfortunately, upon going to a top end graduate program, a lot have come out empty handed...

Contests like the putnam require real mathematical talent, not just hard work.

 

[shawshank]

My Physics teacher has a PhD, his last name is Dykshorn. He said he never did any contests and got out of high school with an 82 in Physics. It's all about creativity, not doing really complex problems that are simple in essence within a given time.
In physics I always see people struggle with simple conceptual questions. For example, we had this question, it was:

Does the electric field point in the direction of increasing or decreasing Electric Potential and no one actually got full marks on that question (some said the right answer but had no proof). Honestly, if you understand the concepts in physics, and I mean truly understand it. No matter how complex a problem, it's all easy. This is why a contest really cannot compare to the level of creativity and ingenuity required of someone earning a PhD.

 

[J77]

Blimey, where was this thread bumped from?

Contests are nothing like research.

If you read enough, and have a good memory, you can pretty much pass any test/compete in any contest; you don't even have to understand the subject.

Whereas, you can't learn originality from a book.

 

[PowerIso]

I believe there is truth in what Andy is writing about. I have seen many students at my university work very hard, and obtain near perfect GPA's. Unfortunately, upon going to a top end graduate program, a lot have come out empty handed...

Contests like the putnam require real mathematical talent, not just hard work.

I think people who do well in the Putnam can probably do well in a PhD, perhaps, but not dong well does not mean you cannot do well in one. There is a huge difference between solving a problem you know there exist a solution to, as opposed to solving a problem that may or may not have a solution(and for that matter, coming up with that problem). You also know that any of those questions on the exam can be solved at a maximum of 3 hours, but while researching, you have no idea when(if ever) you'll solve a certain problem. Yes, creativity is important, but is the Putnam reallllly that creative? I did well simply by learning tricks and do old problems. I had a general idea of what types of questions would be asked, and simply attacked it with that in mind. It isn't THAT difficult to figure out. In my experience, the attitude I take while researching, and the attitude I have while studying for a contest are completely different.

 

[shawshank]

the beauty of research is that sometimes you don't even know the question.

 

[ice109]

i swear for being reasonably smart the posters on this forum sure do have low self-esteem.

any way intelligence is irrelevant; you don't pursue a PhD for the sake of PhD, you do work that you enjoy and along the way you become knowledgeable enough to be called a doctor. I'm sure that not everyone that gets a PhD solves the poincare conjecture hence i infer there are many ways to contribute and still get one in math. In physics I'm sure the requirement for contribution is even more nebulous.

 

[JasonRox]

i swear for being reasonably smart the posters on this forum sure do have low self-esteem.

Most people have low self-esteem and are insecure. Our society runs on that.

 

[HungryChemist]

Here's better test to see if you're ph.d materials or not.

You find studying mathematics and thinking about mathematical things more fun than watching...youtube.

Then, I guarantee your success.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Here's an even better test to see if you are Ph.D. material or not.

Find a wall. Bang your head against it. Keep doing that for an hour.

If you find yourself thinking about stopping before the hour is up, you probably aren't Ph.D. material.

 

[Despondent]

What are you trying to get at? If you mean banging your head in a literal sense then that's complete rubbish no matter how you look at it. Assuming that I'm not way off track in reading between the lines, it is very important to have determination but if you don't recognise your own limitations then you won't make the most efficient use of your time.

 

[Benzoate]

this question is slightly off topic , but what's the difference between a pHd and a masters?

 

[TMFKAN64]

this question is slightly off topic , but what's the difference between a pHd and a masters?

An MS is usually given for a year or two of course work.

A PhD usually has a year or two of course work as well, but the main component is a piece of original research that is described in the PhD thesis. (Completing the thesis is usually the most time-consuming part of getting a PhD, and is where people who drop out of PhD programs usually fail.)

 

[Benzoate]

An MS is usually given for a year or two of course work.

A PhD usually has a year or two of course work as well, but the main component is a piece of original research that is described in the PhD thesis. (Completing the thesis is usually the most time-consuming part of getting a PhD, and is where people who drop out of PhD programs usually fail.)

don't you do research when attempting to complete a masters? I thought writing a thesis was a requirement for earning a masters?

typically do students earned there masters first and then try for a pHD or ,once they complete undergrad, go straight for their pHd

 

[TMFKAN64]

Exactly what an MS program entails is very dependent on the particular school. Some schools do require a thesis, but others do not. However, the major component of the degree at any school is still the coursework. Even if research is required by a particular MS program, the acceptible standard is usually much lower than that of a Ph.D. thesis. (An MS is a much quicker degree... you are usually expected to complete it in a year or two of full-time study. A Ph.D. typically takes 5 years, if not more.)

Usually, students with good undergraduate preparation who are certain that they want to get a Ph.D. go straight into a Ph.D. program. However many get an MS first and then decide to go on later. (To make things even more confusing, many programs that offer only a Ph.D. often award MS along the way if the student asks. For example, Stanford and Berkeley have Ph.D. only programs in physics, but you can get an MS at both once your coursework is out of the way.)