dijkarte
- 190
- 0
Lets say I'm authoring a book on DEs while learning the subject. After finishing the book, would it be reviewed and published?
dijkarte said:Lets say I'm authoring a book on DEs while learning the subject. After finishing the book, would it be reviewed and published?
dijkarte said:Lets say I'm authoring a book on DEs while learning the subject. After finishing the book, would it be reviewed and published?
There is a difference between reviewing a subject before teaching it, and learning it for the first time right before teaching it.dijkarte said:I completely agree. So this is one of my points, when a professor is allowed to teach a subject to graduate students while he's learning it. So He goes over night read, and next day teaches, so he is ahead of his student by literally reading a few pages of a book.
Hobin said:Err... Knowing this, I probably would prefer another book on DEs. You see, I prefer to read a book from someone's who's actually mastered a subject *before* writing a book about it. But maybe that's just me.
dijkarte said:Yes learning it at the same time while teaching it.
Robert1986 said:Another critical difference is that there is a VERY big difference in teaching a class and writing a book. I feel confident that I could teach, say, Calculus or ODEs or Linear Algebra or something, however, I DO NOT think that I could write a (good) book on any of those things; I simply do not have the experience.
TMFKAN64 said:(And of course there is the patron saint of self-taught mathematicians, Ramanujan.)
dijkarte said:Any non academia advocate out there? :D
I start to realize the need for university better, and I will consider going through the lengthy antiquated rituals of academia. Actually I feel now opening my own university instead of writing some papers, or a book. :)
Pyrrhus said:Yes, but even Ramanujan did not publish on his own. He had to contact British mathematicians, and ended up with Hardy.
Robert1986 said:On the other hand, if you are just interested in knowing about math, and you want to do something completely unrelated to math research, then self-teaching isn't the worst thing you could do. But, no one is going to want to use your books because you won't have the credential.
victor.raum said:Indeed, I like that someone finally mentioned that you don't necessarily have to pursue research as your end goal, in which case independent study is perfectly viable so long as it gains you the raw skills you need to accomplish your goals.
I do disagree, however, about the notion that people will not care about your work if you don't have a formal degree. I've personally never bothered to check the credentials on any of the textbook authors I read. For all I knew when I purchased my copies of Spivak and Feynman the authors could have been college drop outs. I read a few pages and enjoyed their writing styles, so I bought their books. I imagine most people buying books, at least outside of a college environment, will judge you based on the quality of what you produce, and not by the diplomas you hang on your wall.
victor.raum said:Indeed, I like that someone finally mentioned that you don't necessarily have to pursue research as your end goal, in which case independent study is perfectly viable so long as it gains you the raw skills you need to accomplish your goals.
I do disagree, however, about the notion that people will not care about your work if you don't have a formal degree. I've personally never bothered to check the credentials on any of the textbook authors I read. For all I knew when I purchased my copies of Spivak and Feynman the authors could have been college drop outs. I read a few pages and enjoyed their writing styles, so I bought their books. I imagine most people buying books, at least outside of a college environment, will judge you based on the quality of what you produce, and not by the diplomas you hang on your wall.
The people that published their books knew their credentials for damn sure.
You have to have eat. That means that someone has to give you money. This is non-trivial.
In 3, you will spend 40+ years working 40+ hours at a job you (probably) don't like (or don't like as much) just because you wanted to avoid 4 years of grad school when you were in your twenties. I bet 40 year old dijkarte would want to kick 20 year old dijkarte's butt!
homeomorphic said:If working at walmart and living in a shack is what I have to do in order to have sufficient time for my hobbies, so be it.
I don't know that it's that hard to get enough money to get by.
dijkarte said:So get out of your cave and start thinking life. Get some real work experience in your field.
So telling me without this PhD I suck and I'm a loser is purely idiotic.
Telling me that my prospective work will not get any attention or no one will be looking at it is dumb and immature.
No wonder why I never met someone with PhD who is working outside the campus. They nerd themselves at 20s and age there.
I<3Gauss said:After reading through this thread, I just want to say that it is definitely possible to do research mathematics without a graduate or undergraduate degree. However, so is getting hit by lightning, or being mauled by a cow.
No one likes to admit the elephant in the room, but success in academia is not completely based on merit but on connections. Without these connections from attending a graduate program or having people back up your research, it will be hard for your paper to get published.
Ultimately, it seems like your main point is that you think it is possible to obtain a graduate education and write a research paper without going to grad school.
Also, please keep in mind that in this day and age, there are not a lot of good, quality, research papers published by someone without a graduate education.
homeomorphic said:If working at walmart and living in a shack is what I have to do in order to have sufficient time for my hobbies, so be it. I don't know that it's that hard to get enough money to get by. The question is what you're willing to live with.
You seem to not be able to read. If you would kindly re-read my post you will find that I clearly said that if you want to just learn math then self-study isn't bad.dijkarte said:Weird! I did not know I've been working, me and my colleagues, something unrelated that we don't like because we don't have graduate degrees...
But anyway we kicked many 20-year old PhDs' butts and made sure they are not in the professional since they could not show any competence in terms of related knowledge, experience, personality and social skills. We had experience with a few and they sucked! They just sucked!, unfortunately.
So get out of your cave and start thinking life. Get some real work experience in your field. This is where you get the real knowledge and see things in action, whether it's math, physics, engineering or whatever branch of sciences and arts.
I agree 100%! When the heck did I EVER say this?So telling me without this PhD I suck and I'm a loser is purely idiotic.
More immature than lying about what others said, as you have done?Telling me that my prospective work will not get any attention or no one will be looking at it is dumb and immature.
No wonder why I never met someone with PhD who is working outside the campus. They nerd themselves at 20s and age there.
So you might get by in the gov't with a B.S. but who knows what you'll be doing. For research in the private sector, or at a college, howeverFor jobs as a mathematician with the federal government, candidates need at least a bachelor's degree with a major in mathematics
In private industry, mathematicians typically need an advanced degree, either a master's degree or a doctorate. ... For a position as a professor of mathematics in a college or university, a doctorate is usually required.
dijkarte said:Lets say I'm authoring a book on DEs while learning the subject. After finishing the book, would it be reviewed and published?
homeomorphic said:But that is one of the wonders of the internet. So long as you are not concerned with turning a profit, you're fine (not a promising proposition, anyway, although people like Stewart got rich that way). I will have a PhD, so I will have credentials, but that is my plan, anyway. I expect no profits from my expository work, which I eventually plan to make available online.
dijkarte said:Weird! I did not know I've been working, me and my colleagues, something unrelated that we don't like because we don't have graduate degrees...
But anyway we kicked many 20-year old PhDs' butts and made sure they are not in the professional since they could not show any competence in terms of related knowledge, experience, personality and social skills. We had experience with a few and they sucked! They just sucked!, unfortunately.
So get out of your cave and start thinking life. Get some real work experience in your field. This is where you get the real knowledge and see things in action, whether it's math, physics, engineering or whatever branch of sciences and arts.
So telling me without this PhD I suck and I'm a loser is purely idiotic.
Telling me that my prospective work will not get any attention or no one will be looking at it is dumb and immature.
No wonder why I never met someone with PhD who is working outside the campus. They nerd themselves at 20s and age there.
dkotschessaa said:Well, it's the double edged sword of the Internet.
I am also extra, extra careful in checking the credentials of the person who wrote the article. I would hope anybody would be.
Here is a case where the "piece of paper" is very helpful. It's a paper trail back to where they did their studies. Where did they study? Who did they collaborate and study with?
The system is easily corruptible. People skate by on money and connections. You can hire somebody else to write your Phd. or Masters thesis for you.
But it's the system we have, and I'm glad it's there, rather than nothing.
You're making some pretty wild inferences and jumping to conclusions. You need to get a reign on your logic skills before you tackle math.
To me, it sounds like an excuse to be lazy.
twofish-quant said:The problem with the internet is that there is a ton of useful information out there, but it's all mostly not organized very well. For example, if I have a college textbook, I have this organized set of problems grouped by chapter with answers available. That stuff *is* available on the internet, but it's scattered in fifty different locations.
I actually have a general disrespect for credentials. When I read papers on the Los Alamos Preprint Server, I generally *don't* check the credentials of the person writing it because it's largely irrelevant to the quality of the paper. There are idiots with Ph.D. degrees, and some competent people without them. A lot of excellent papers are authored by graduate students. Conversely, I know of two *Nobel prize winners* and one former *university president* that happen to be totally loony when you get them to talk on a certain topic. One time, I was reading Ap.J. and I came across an article that was totally loony. I looked at the name, and it was a rather famous Nobel Prize winner. It was still a loony paper.
In my personal life, I've found that the world has its fair share of incompetent lawyers, doctors, and auto mechanics, so I've found that I've always had to teach myself some very basic law, medicine, and auto repair so that I have some clue as to whether the person that I'm seeing is competent or not. Once I've satisfied myself that said person is competent, then I can sort of trust them.
Universities are useful *not* because they give you a credential. The credential is actually unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Universities are important because they provide a lot of support facilities so that you can sit down and *think*. If I could figure out how to make the economics work, I'd perfer it if universities didn't issue degrees at all.
One reason going to graduate school is important is that you get to learn what standards are. I know what a decent paper in astrophysics looks like, and I also know that I don't have time to write one, and I'm not going to upload crap onto Los Alamos with my name on it. I'd be embarrassed.
I've never found that to be very important. I know what good pizza taste like, and I know what a decent astronomy paper looks like. I don't care how you get it. One reason I'm skeptical that the OP will get anywhere is that without having gone into academia, you really don't know what good research and bad research looks like, and that gives you nothing to aim for.
In fact, you really can't. You have to defend the dissertation. It's academic cage fighting. You get locked into a room with five professors and they proceed to rip your work to shreds and do everything they can to make you look and feel like an idiot. If you can hold your ground, then you get the degree.
The system like any other system is corruptible, but it's not *easily* corruptible.
I really don't think that it's the system that we have.
Also, there is the Picasso effect. If you look at the early work of Pablo Picasso, it's rather conventional painting. Picasso had to master conventional painting before tearing convention to shreds. I think the same holds true with "conventional" academia. I think it's pretty essential for anyone that wants to tear apart the academic system to have a lot of experience with academia so that they know what it is they are tearing apart.
That's the problem. Jobs that are time flexible require you to work long hours to meet basic necessities. Jobs that allow you to to meet basic necessities are not time flexible.
I don't know that it's that hard to get enough money to get by.
I do. It gets worse if you want to raise a family. Also even without a family, you need time off to attend conferences, read journals, get e-mail access, etc. etc. Once you are away from the university, then you realize that there are a lot of "trivial" things that aren't so trivial. Like a research library.
Self-study is wonderful, but the whole point of a university is to make it possible to self-study.
dcpo said:A formal mathematical education is not a theoretical prerequisite for publishing maths papers, as anyone can send a paper to a journal, and if it meets the standards of that journal it'll probably be published, and if you publish enough papers in high quality journals you will be taken seriously by the community. In practice though formal education to Ph.D level is usually necessary, because most people, even talented people, will not develop their abilities to do and write mathematics without time in that kind of environment. There will of course be exceptions to this, but I question why anyone with a serious interest in producing new mathematics wouldn't just go to grad school, where they would be paid for their efforts. Anyone with the ability required to home educate themselves to research level should find the formal requirements almost trivial.
but I question why anyone with a serious interest in producing new mathematics wouldn't just go to grad school, where they would be paid for their efforts. Anyone with the ability required to home educate themselves to research level should find the formal requirements almost trivial.
dijkarte said:Probably you need to work on your inter-personal and social skills first. This will help you a lot understanding mathematics better :)
I would rather be lazy and have a well paid professional job with my own office than having a PhD and enslaved at Walmart.
dijkarte said:I agree with you victor.raum, liberal arts requirements sucks student life. The academic rational behind it is to maintain balance, and help your GPA. :D
How funny is that?
It's completely the opposite, while they constitute almost 50% of the curriculum, they keep students busy and distracted from their major courses. Why then we need them? Well obviously to make more profit for the uni, they are not free courses. :)
This is one of the biggest problem with undergraduate studies. My question does a liberal arts student take as many non-major (science and engineering) courses as a science major student takes?
I don't think so. The balance they want is that to make an undergraduate degree look 4-5 years length, so they compensate for the shortening of courses in the science majors. Yes science major courses are not many in general, are not many at a university, not much to choose per a semester. This is another big problem. This is applicable to graduate studies as well, and I'm talking about personal experience, that made me drop out of my graduate studies. What the uni shows they offer in their ads, AKA, graduate booklets, is not the same as what's offered. There are probably some factors that dictate what courses are offered per semester, but I'm paying and I enrolled then I deserve to find the courses I want, I don't care if there's a professor available or not, or if there's enough students in the class to make profit.
homeomorphic said:As a grad student, I make very little money, and the only reason I'm poorer than I'd like is because I loaned a lot of money to someone. Otherwise, I would feel very comfortable with what I'm making, though most people would consider my salary to be very low. Average would be like 30 k.
So, for people with lower standards, it's not that hard. It's nice to have a little extra, just in case, though.
Starting a family is optional.
The library is helpful, but with internet access, plus buying the occasional book or journal, you can get a lot of what you need, but probably not all of it.
No it isn't. The rationale is to expose students to a wide area of knowledge so that he can become a truly educated.
Well most unis are not for profit. But science is a liberal art so what you are saying makes no sense.
victor.raum said:Yet, I still can't force myself to give my academic life over to a school for 4 years to get a bachelors degree.
No matter how much I might enjoy having a PhD and forever living in an academic research environment, I just can't bring myself to put down the current books I'm reading, or abandon my current projects.
Especially not when it would mean giving myself over for 4 years to an educational path that is so dictatorial, totalitarian, and largely uncaring about my specific interests.
Remember, it's specifically the undergrad degree I'm talking about. I can speak from experience on that matter, though I sometimes wonder how or if grad school would be different.