College drop out, Good choice educationally?

[TMFKAN64]

There are two paths you can take through life.

The first path is for independently wealthy geniuses, who can study what they want when they want and disregard all of the rules.

The second path is for everyone else, and consists of jumping through the hoops that are set in front of you in the order that they are set in front of you.

If you attempt the first path and are *not* both wealthy *and* brilliant, you will be in for a world of hurt.

 

[JonDrew]

If you cannot handle the bureaucracy of an undergraduate education, what makes you think you can handle the greater bureaucracy of an graduate education? Or the greater still bureaucracy of being a working scientist? Grant proposals, requests for telescope scheduling, committee work: this is part of the day to day life of a scientist.

I guarantee you that the graduate admissions committee will be asking exactly these questions.

By what exactly do you mean bureaucracy? Because I guess I associate very strong connotations with that term. connotations like corruption, top down structures, restricted freedoms on expressing ones opinion (because expressing ones own opinion at the risk of making the "wrong" person angry is "dangerous"), and finally, opportunities being given to those with more political "pull" rather than those who are the most experienced or able.

Thats what bureaucracy means to me, please elaborate on what you mean as to ensure no semantics are left unexposed.

 

[JonDrew]

There are two paths you can take through life.

The first path is for independently wealthy geniuses, who can study what they want when they want and disregard all of the rules.

The second path is for everyone else, and consists of jumping through the hoops that are set in front of you in the order that they are set in front of you.

If you attempt the first path and are *not* both wealthy *and* brilliant, you will be in for a world of hurt.

I guess this is the exact stigma I find myself challenging at this point in my life.

Please elaborate on what a genius means to you.

My definition isn't someone who is outrageously more intelligent than everyone else but rather, it is a person who knows how to use the brainpower given to them at its maximum potential.

 

[chill_factor]

By what exactly do you mean bureaucracy? Because I guess I associate very strong connotations with that term. connotations like corruption, top down structures, restricted freedoms on expressing ones opinion (because expressing ones own opinion at the risk of making the "wrong" person angry is "dangerous"), and finally, opportunities being given to those with more political "pull" rather than those who are the most experienced or able.

Thats what bureaucracy means to me, please elaborate on what you mean as to ensure no semantics are left unexposed.

that's exactly what happens in academia. what, you don't know about administrators being paid far more than faculty, about certain research directions being not hot so you have to do what's "hot" or face reduced funding, about petty squabbles from using "SOMEONE ELSE'S" microwave, about office politics? about papers being published simply because they're from a "hot" professor on a "hot" topic while its plain wrong? What about 80% of biomedical cancer research article conclusions being absolutely irreproducible even with the help of the original writers? That's in biomedical fields where you can actually do lots of experiments in medium budget labs, I wonder what's the rate in astro and HEP where there's a single instrument in the world that can do it and if you make [stuff] up that sounds plausible you literally cannot be refuted?

also, i guarantee you, after you do some Arfken and Jackson problems (being FORCED to do them, otherwise you get fired), you will at the very least strongly reconsider your love for physics, if not outright be crushed.

 

[TMFKAN64]

You should have focused on the word "wealthy" instead.

If you aren't capable of supporting yourself, you will have to get a job and do what someone else tells you to do. In some sense, part of the purpose of college and graduate school is to get you used to this while learning about your domain of interest.

You don't *have* to obey the rules. But if you don't, you have to be prepared to do everything yourself.

 

[JonDrew]

that's exactly what happens in academia. what, you don't know about administrators being paid far more than faculty, about certain research directions being not hot so you have to do what's "hot" or face reduced funding, about petty squabbles from using "SOMEONE ELSE'S" microwave, about office politics? about papers being published simply because they're from a "hot" professor on a "hot" topic while its plain wrong? What about 80% of biomedical cancer research article conclusions being absolutely irreproducible even with the help of the original writers? That's in biomedical fields where you can actually do lots of experiments in medium budget labs, I wonder what's the rate in astro and HEP where there's a single instrument in the world that can do it and if you make sh!t up that sounds plausible you literally cannot be refuted?

also, i guarantee you, after you do some Arfken and Jackson problems (being FORCED to do them, otherwise you get fired), you will at the very least strongly reconsider your love for physics, if not outright be crushed.

Could you tell me the name of your grad-school so I know not to apply there?

What your talking about is the system I am trying to learn in and this is why I am considering continuing my study on my own. I'd be fine starting out at a small unreputable research graduate institution to get out of the system you just described.

I don't think my passion for the sciences would die due to a terrible experience with a textbook, I already lack the passion for academia i know that, I'm talking about leaving it.

 

[JonDrew]

You should have focused on the word "wealthy" instead.

If you aren't capable of supporting yourself, you will have to get a job and do what someone else tells you to do. In some sense, part of the purpose of college and graduate school is to get you used to this while learning about your domain of interest.

You don't *have* to obey the rules. But if you don't, you have to be prepared to do everything yourself.

I like to think of myself as a DIY kind of guy, but I would not have to do everything myself, my parents bank account would probably say thank you, and in return I would be under there shelter.

 

[chill_factor]

Could you tell me the name of your grad-school so I know not to apply there?

What your talking about is the system I am trying to learn in and this is why I am considering continuing my study on my own. I'd be fine starting out at a small unreputable research graduate institution to get out of the system you just described.

I don't think my passion for the sciences would die due to a terrible experience with a textbook, I already lack the passion for academia i know that, I'm talking about leaving it.

That is how grad programs work. It works the same way from Utah to New York. Did you get the email from University of Arizona astronomers demanding 80 hour workweeks from their students?

Also grad school IS academia. It is the very definition of academia. It is a job. Jackson is part of the job. If you do not do Jackson that's like a pizza delivery guy refusing to deliver pizzas. You get fired from the job.

Life is about dealing with bureaucracy. I'm not trying to convince you that dropping out is a bad idea. I'm just telling you the facts that if you drop out, you're still going to have to deal with bureaucracy, but from a lower position in the ladder.

 

[JonDrew]

That is how grad programs work. It works the same way from Utah to New York. Did you get the email from University of Arizona astronomers demanding 80 hour workweeks from their students?

Also grad school IS academia. It is the very definition of academia. It is a job. Jackson is part of the job. If you do not do Jackson that's like a pizza delivery guy refusing to deliver pizzas. You get fired from the job.

Life is about dealing with bureaucracy. I'm not trying to convince you that dropping out is a bad idea. I'm just telling you the facts that if you drop out, you're still going to have to deal with bureaucracy, but from a lower position in the ladder.

80 hour workweeks are not something I think I would find bothersome, I think I would enjoy them immensely, especially if they were in an area such as physics or biophysics. And I don't view dropping out as the end of my education career, rather my goal is to get into graduate school without an undergraduate degree.

My best plan for this is to score as high as I can on as many as I can, GRE subject test, possibly get some research opportunities in small privet labs, which I have found in the past few days and show up at my new advisors threshold until he agree's to indeed be my new advisor.

Seeming that your in grad-school now could you use all those years of academic experience and help me think of ways to critique my plan so I can make it happen somewhat similar to what I am saying.

 

[Vanadium 50]

My best plan for this is to score as high as I can on as many as I can, GRE subject test, possibly get some research opportunities in small privet labs, which I have found in the past few days and show up at my new advisors threshold until he agree's to indeed be my new advisor.

Or, more likely, until he has had campus security remove you.

This is a poor plan, for all the reasons that have been stated before.

 

[Jorriss]

My professor's specialty is Biophysics and a good Biophysicist at that, which is cool because that's what I am planning I want to go into. But I do understand relativity better than my professor and its very apparent, not just a speculation. Quantum and other topics are a very different case, but relativity I really do. Most the students in my class would probably agree on that they do too.

No, you really probably do not understand it better.

If you want to go to graduate school, this is a very bad idea. You never want to be the exceptional case that has to be discussed.

 

[coalquay404]

By what exactly do you mean bureaucracy? Because I guess I associate very strong connotations with that term. connotations like corruption, top down structures, restricted freedoms on expressing ones opinion (because expressing ones own opinion at the risk of making the "wrong" person angry is "dangerous"), and finally, opportunities being given to those with more political "pull" rather than those who are the most experienced or able.

Regardless of where you end up in life, you're ultimately going to have to go into the world at some point to get a job and support yourself. Progression in any job involves political considerations and knowing when to keep your mouth shut. Thinking that you're somehow above all of that is a great way to end up in the poorhouse.

By the way, having re-read this thread I've noticed something that I don't think has been mentioned yet. Essentially, your plan reduces to: (a) dropping out of university; (b) moving back into your parents' place; (c) "studying" independently; (d) going on to graduate school. At no point do you mention what you're going to do in order to support yourself after you drop out. Are you planning on having your poor parents pay for this adventure?

 

[rhombusjr]

I think dropping out based on the reasons you stated is a really bad and naive plan. You want to drop out of academia because you want to go into academia? This does not make any sense whatsoever.

There's lots of better options for you than dropping out to become an academic rebel. Have you considered transferring schools? I can't imagine that there isn't a school out there that won't challenge you.

If your courses are not challenging you, take upper division or graduate courses. And I don't mean just sit in on the lectures. Do the problem sets, take the exams. The graduate students at my school spend ~60-80 hours per week doing homework. If you can't handle the work, you have no business saying you're above "the system". The thing about OCW is that there's no pressure to do the problem sets or the exams. The only way to check to see if you've mastered the material is to solve problems. Watching the youtube videos isn't enough, you have to do the work.

If you do decide to drop out someone might ask you "only a 3.6? If you're so good, why don't you have a 4.0?"

You can't just go up to some random professor and command them to be your advisor, even if you offer to pay them. This is true even if you are a student at their university. If you're not a student at their university they will be even more less likely to be your mentor. Why should they give preference to you (a nobody) over their own students? Random professors literally have ZERO reason to take you on as a student. All research internships at labs require you to be a student somewhere to qualify.

How do you know you understand relativity better than your professor? I find this highly unlikely given that they're an established physicist and you've just watched some youtube videos. There's lots of professors who know the material better than they can teach it.

If you think you can handle more, tell your professors. I'm sure most of them would be happy to give you more advanced material on the side. I'm also sure that they're perfectly capable of giving you material so advanced that you'll choke and die trying to understand it.

Take Feynman as an example for you. He graduated from MIT in 3 years and took every single upper level/graduate course in the physics department in one year. He taught himself quantum mechanics out of Dirac's textbook before there was such a thing as a "quantum mechanics class". If staying in school was good enough for Feynman, you've got a hell of a lot of balls to think you're too good for it.

 

[JonDrew]

Regardless of where you end up in life, you're ultimately going to have to go into the world at some point to get a job and support yourself. Progression in any job involves political considerations and knowing when to keep your mouth shut. Thinking that you're somehow above all of that is a great way to end up in the poorhouse.

By the way, having re-read this thread I've noticed something that I don't think has been mentioned yet. Essentially, your plan reduces to: (a) dropping out of university; (b) moving back into your parents' place; (c) "studying" independently; (d) going on to graduate school. At no point do you mention what you're going to do in order to support yourself after you drop out. Are you planning on having your poor parents pay for this adventure?

My parents would actually be saving a bunch of money if I did this and it worked out, my parents are paying for my college now, I have scholarships but its still a little over $30k a year. I actually was the one who paid the majority of my first semester, I didn't even have to I figured it be good motivation for me to do so. And I was actually right, it really kept me motivated being able to say to myself that I had a large stake, monetarily, in my education.

But with all that, my parents are confident that I am not just trying to freeload for the next two years and am sincerely dissatisfied with my academic experience so they are supportive of me trying this, so long as it can actually be done.

So aside from the fact that you say I shouldn't do it let's talk theory (after all that's what physics is all about) and propose the assumption that it is going to happen. Even though, you say I couldn't get into your academic institution, would you say I have a good chance of getting into a lesser reputable program? Assuming I could score say, in the top 70% on the GRE subject physics test, I think that is realistic for me.

 

[jtbell]

Obviously, it's your choice in the end, and all we can do here is give advice and suggestions.

However, note this: we get people here like you (more or less) a couple of times a year or so, who want to skip a formal undergraduate degree, self-study the material, ace the GREs, and go on to graduate school. I don't remember any of them ever coming back and telling us that they succeeded.

If you do decide to go ahead with this plan, please let us know how it works out.

 

[coalquay404]

So aside from the fact that you say I shouldn't do it let's talk theory (after all that's what physics is all about) and propose the assumption that it is going to happen. Even though, you say I couldn't get into your academic institution, would you say I have a good chance of getting into a lesser reputable program?

No. Not only would I say that you don't have a good chance, I'd say that you have essentially no chance.

 

[JonDrew]

(1) You want to drop out of academia because you want to go into academia? This does not make any sense whatsoever.

(2) Have you considered transferring schools? I can't imagine that there isn't a school out there that won't challenge you.

(3) If your courses are not challenging you, take upper division or graduate courses. And I don't mean just sit in on the lectures. Do the problem sets, take the exams. The graduate students at my school spend ~60-80 hours per week doing homework. If you can't handle the work, you have no business saying you're above "the system". The thing about OCW is that there's no pressure to do the problem sets or the exams. The only way to check to see if you've mastered the material is to solve problems. Watching the youtube videos isn't enough, you have to do the work.

(4) If you do decide to drop out someone might ask you "only a 3.6? If you're so good, why don't you have a 4.0?"

(5) You can't just go up to some random professor and command them to be your advisor, even if you offer to pay them. This is true even if you are a student at their university. If you're not a student at their university they will be even more less likely to be your mentor. Why should they give preference to you (a nobody) over their own students? Random professors literally have ZERO reason to take you on as a student. All research internships at labs require you to be a student somewhere to qualify.

(6) How do you know you understand relativity better than your professor? I find this highly unlikely given that they're an established physicist and you've just watched some youtube videos. There's lots of professors who know the material better than they can teach it.

(7) If you think you can handle more, tell your professors. I'm sure most of them would be happy to give you more advanced material on the side. I'm also sure that they're perfectly capable of giving you material so advanced that you'll choke and die trying to understand it.

(8) Take Feynman as an example for you. He graduated from MIT in 3 years and took every single upper level/graduate course in the physics department in one year. He taught himself quantum mechanics out of Dirac's textbook before there was such a thing as a "quantum mechanics class". If staying in school was good enough for Feynman, you've got a hell of a lot of balls to think you're too good for it.

Thank you so much for your input, it was very refreshing and to the point while giving me a couple of chuckles along the way.

(1) I am undecided for academia after a Masters degree. I think I'd rather an added business degree instead of a Ph.D (I know intolerance to bureaucracy and all that) for reasons to long to describe here.

(2) Yes I'm currently at my second academic institution I transferred here at the beginning of this past summers first semester both schools have decent reputations. And Just to be clear it isn't that I am not being challenged but it is rather that higher quality instruction is offered for free.

(3) I don't think I am above the system, I just think higher quality education is offered for free so it seems logical to take advantage of it. I am not opposed to doing the work, I will do it either way.

(4) I don't claim that I am extraordinarily good I just think I am self-disiplined enough to learn the material without the aid of an academic institution.

(5) The threshold thing was a joke.

(6) I don't know, I am confident that I am though. It's a subjective topic, I can't prove it let's move on.

(7) That sounds fund but I am booked. I'm taking 17 engineering and science credits, Its not that I'm not busy, I just think academia is more in the way of my education than helping it.

(8) Feynman went to MIT, I don't. Maybe Feynman would have preferred OpenCourseware, too. There is no way of knowing, it wasn't offered to him.

 

[JonDrew]

Obviously, it's your choice in the end, and all we can do here is give advice and suggestions.

However, note this: we get people here like you (more or less) a couple of times a year or so, who want to skip a formal undergraduate degree, self-study the material, ace the GREs, and go on to graduate school. I don't remember any of them ever coming back and telling us that they succeeded.

If you do decide to go ahead with this plan, please let us know how it works out.

Could you direct me to those post?

 

[mathwonk]

Why not stay in school and also learn on your own? you do not convince me that you are actually above the level of your courses, by the way. the number of students, no matter how smart, who have nothing to learn from their professors, approaches zero.

for one thing the professor knows how to get a degree and a job.

 

[JonDrew]

Why not stay in school and also learn on your own? you do not convince me that you are actually above the level of your courses, by the way. the number of students, no matter how smart, who have nothing to learn from their professors, approaches zero.

for one thing the professor knows how to get a degree and a job.

I appreciate your input and thank you for replying. But I never said I was smarter than my professor I don't like to talk in such terms, "smart" is not a very useful word in that context. I just was pointing out what I am noticing, that after a few weeks of studying the material I've noticed that my professor has less of a grasp on the subject then I seem to have. I came to this conclusion after a test which was very poorly written almost cost me my very nice grade before I convinced the professor to throw out a large point question on the said test.

I'm not trying to say I am above anything, I am just looking for suggestions on how I could learn on my own and not ruin my chances at doing something with my life without having to pay a large, large sum of cash each year.

I find it very strange to believe that the only way to break into the science field is with a full ride scholarship or a prerequisite of 120K from my parents bank account.

 

[micromass]

I appreciate your input and thank you for replying. But I never said I was smarter than my professor I don't like to talk in such terms, "smart" is not a very useful word in that context. I just was pointing out what I am noticing, that after a few weeks of studying the material I've noticed that my professor has less of a grasp on the subject then I seem to have. I came to this conclusion after a test which was very poorly written almost cost me my very nice grade before I convinced the professor to throw out a large point question on the said test.

So your professor made a mistake and you conclude from that that you know the material better?? Wow.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I find it very strange to believe that the only way to break into the science field is with a full ride scholarship or a prerequisite of 120K from my parents bank account.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Capitalism! I hope you will enjoy your stay!

Seriously, there are options between the two you mention... partial scholarships, student loans, etc. etc. But yes, in the US, a degree costs a boatload of money.

And without a degree, you have essentially no chance of a career in science. (If you permit me to be cynical for a moment, your chances are small enough *with* a degree.)

 

[JonDrew]

So your professor made a mistake and you conclude from that that you know the material better?? Wow.

No that's when I *concluded* it, goodness, people don't read very well on this forum. I didn't make my entire assumption off that one incident.

Okay, so I am putting this one to rest right now. There was a twenty point question on my physics exam that was "supposed" to be a time dilation/length contraction problem but, the author of the test, my professor, never specified observers anywhere in the question. So I read it over and over three or four times, saying to myself there are no observers specified for this question, It can only be a classical mechanics problem inside the only reference frame even referred to in the problem, the reference frame of the single particle in the question. Since the question was how far did the particle go? I multiplied velocity by the particles said lifetime and, Viola, about 3 seconds of work for a 20 point question right? Wrong. 0/20 when I got it back apparently it was assumed the particle was in a laboratory and was being observed by a stationary observer (this was no where in the test whatsoever), I went back looked at my textbook and there it was the exact explanation of length contraction saying "without observers there can be no length contraction" I explain this to my professor, a fairly simple aspect of relativity right? Wrong again apparently, the professor didn't want to give me the points back! Saying "it's all relative" but then after very labor-intensive proofing I finally got the professor to realize the mistake in the test and then the question got thrown out. So there, that's how I concluded I know relativity better than my professor.

 

[JonDrew]

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Capitalism! I hope you will enjoy your stay!

Seriously, there are options between the two you mention... partial scholarships, student loans, etc. etc. But yes, in the US, a degree costs a boatload of money.

And without a degree, you have essentially no chance of a career in science. (If you permit me to be cynical for a moment, your chances are small enough *with* a degree.)

I don't blame capitalism for my dilemma, but I do feel its a sham.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Everything that has needed to be said has been said, and we're starting to go in circles. Thread closed.