Self-Taught vs. Academic: The Need for Formal Education in Mathematics

[homeomorphic]

Actually, I think with food stamps, you could survive with a part time job at minimum wage if you really wanted to, though that would be cutting it close even by my standards.

Not to mention, I could probably get away with charging $60 an hour for tutoring.

 

[victor.raum]

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.

I don't necessarily claim to be a greatly talented self learner like the one you hypothetically describe there, but let's assume for a moment just for the sake of argument that I am. I'm brilliant, I can comprehend any material without much aid, and I naturally ace any test I see provide that I put in at least some minimal effort.

Yet, I still can't force myself to give my academic life over to a school for 4 years to get a bachelors degree. However quickly I might pick up on material, taking in new information still takes time. Homework assignments have to be done, essays have to be written, and liberal arts requirements are not trivial time wise. Just as importantly, the books you read are not of your choosing, and being told what to read is extremely demoralizing. Generally the choice of what you work on and think about during the day while pursuing an undergrad degree will be dictated by the school. Regardless of how snappy of a student you are you don't have much time left over for yourself for any satisfying independent study. You give your intellectual life over to the institution for that time.

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.

 

[Jorriss]

Liberal arts requirements I agree with but there are ways to self study in a university for credit. You can do readings or independent studies with a professor, at many universities that is.

 

[dijkarte]

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.

Thanks you for asking this :) it helps me clarify my point here.

The answer is:

1) Flexible hours, some people work, they need some rest and flexible hours more than whatever part-time can do for them. the brain needs enough sleep hours to function and learn properly.

2) Some people don't like being pushed toward exams, so they don't want to study for marks and "deans honor list." Their goal is to learn and acquire knowledge.

3) They don't want to be in debt for a long time.

4) It's not their primary goal to write "research papers." Any one can do it and many do it and many many many did it. We can learn it, thanks to wikipedia, google and brain, and LaTex of course. ;)

5) They are smart enough. :)

 

[Robert1986]

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.

Who has a phd and is enslaved at walmart. who has suggested that this is a good thing? Why the strawman?

 

[dijkarte]

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.

 

[Robert1986]

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

No it isn't. The rationale is to expose students to a wide area of knowledge so that he can become a truly educated.

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.

Well most unis are not for profit. But science is a liberal art so what you are saying makes no sense.

 

[twofish-quant]

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.

The problem is not money. It's time. It's trivially easy for a Ph.D. to get a job that will make them 30K. A *lot* more than 30K. The trouble is that there is a lack of time to do research. The jobs that I've been able to find are either extremely poorly paying in which you have to spend extremely long hours working in order to make 30K, or else jobs that are high paying, but in which you are salaried and you have to work long hours to make your salary.

I haven't found any jobs (other than university associated ones) that have the time flexibility to let you work on professional stuff. What would be cool would be a government job like the one that Einstein had, but those don't seem to exist.

Again, I'd be happy to find someone that *has* managed to find a job that let's you to research, but having looked for one, I've become a lot more appreciative of the teaching/research assistant positions that universities give. You are an indentured servant, but they'll give you *time* to study your dissertation, and this is *not* true for commericial jobs. Commericial companies are trying to squeeze as much work for as little money as they can.

So, for people with lower standards, it's not that hard. It's nice to have a little extra, just in case, though.

It's a lot harder than it seems. Most graduate students are guaranteed funding. Outside of the university, you aren't guarateed anything, and if the employer thinks that you will be "easily distracted" then they'll find someone else.

Starting a family is optional.

Not for me it isn't. One good thing about having kids is that it gives you captive students.

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.

Well... No. I'm lucky. All of the major journals in astrophysics are online and so is all of the latest research in Los Alamos. What I'm missing are journal articles outside of astrophysics, those are mostly behind a paywall. It's also difficult to get books. Yes I can buy books from Amazon, but I don't get the benefit of having a "new books" stack in which I can look at random stuff.

Also there's a lot of other missing stuff. Hardware and broadband need to be paid for. If your computer breaks then you have to be your own sysadmin. Etc. Etc. It all eats up time and energy.

Yes, you can reply with "what about doing X? What about Y?" I'm not saying that it can't be done, I'm saying that I haven't been able to do it.

One thing that I *would* have done differently was that I would have kept my research network active. After I got my Ph.D. I was a little burned out and annoyed, so I kept myself out of academia for a few years. That was a bad idea, since my research network went cold, and restarting a research network is 100x as difficult as keeping one going.

 

[dijkarte]

No it isn't. The rationale is to expose students to a wide area of knowledge so that he can become a truly educated.

Oh I forgot you will be reading it, so yeah I mean knowledge balance, as they told us. You get educational balance at earlier stages of learning prior to university. Otherwise it's useless and irrelevant.

Well most unis are not for profit. But science is a liberal art so what you are saying makes no sense.

History, languages and literature are science subjects that are related to math, physics and engineering?! Well my advice to you go back to high-school, study harder and learn how to read and communicate. After you done, better you major in politics.

Math needs a cool minded personality, not a nerd.

 

[twofish-quant]

Yet, I still can't force myself to give my academic life over to a school for 4 years to get a bachelors degree.

In that case you are hosed if you want to do academic research. If you want to be a professional reseacher, you will essentially have to give your *entire life* to the system.

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.

I don't think you would enjoy research. A lot of being productive is to realize when you've hit a dead end, give up on what you are working on, and try a new approach. When you are doing a bachelors degree, someone forces you to read the "right books." When you are doing a Ph.D., it's harder because you have to figure out for yourself what the "right books" are, and no one really knows. Research is mostly a frustrating series of dead ends, and red herrings.

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.

I think it's going to get worse in graduate school.

If you look at what professors do, a *huge* amount of time involves looking for money. Professor has to convince someone to give their research team money so that they can keep researching. The people that fund this sort of stuff aren't doing it out of altruism. The academic system is part of a giant bureaucratic system of economic and social control. It's actually quite clever, because in order to keep from getting brutal, people are given the illusion of control and choice when in fact the really important decisions are made by other people. I suppose "rule by social brainwashing" is better than tossing people in jail.

Now one thing about the social system is that it's surprisingly open. *They* will let you join the club. The one catch is that you have to think and act like *them*.

Academia is mostly about bureaucracy and politics. But then again, so is everything else.

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.

The big difference is that in undergraduate, the goal of the teacher is to teach you what he knows. The goal of a Ph.D. program is so that you can figure out stuff that the teacher doesn't know. One professors I knew put in this way. We give the student the degree when he or she convinces us that they know more about the topic than we do.

 

[dcpo]

I don't necessarily claim to be a greatly talented self learner like the one you hypothetically describe there, but let's assume for a moment just for the sake of argument that I am. I'm brilliant, I can comprehend any material without much aid, and I naturally ace any test I see provide that I put in at least some minimal effort.

Yet, I still can't force myself to give my academic life over to a school for 4 years to get a bachelors degree. However quickly I might pick up on material, taking in new information still takes time. Homework assignments have to be done, essays have to be written, and liberal arts requirements are not trivial time wise. Just as importantly, the books you read are not of your choosing, and being told what to read is extremely demoralizing. Generally the choice of what you work on and think about during the day while pursuing an undergrad degree will be dictated by the school. Regardless of how snappy of a student you are you don't have much time left over for yourself for any satisfying independent study. You give your intellectual life over to the institution for that time.

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.

Well, someone as talented as the person you describe could get through an undergrad degree with plenty of time left over, and if they couldn't bring themselves to suck it up and spend a mere four years of their life doing something that wasn't their first choice in pursuit of something that would give them happiness they're going to have it hard in life, because at some point almost everyone has to spend time doing things they don't consider fun.

Also, not having a degree doesn't stop people publishing papers, the thing that stops people without degrees and post graduate degrees publishing papers is usually that they don't produce work of the required standard. It's not impossible of course, but if someone is sufficiently talented that they can produce publishable mathematics while at the same time holding down a day job, then there's nothing stopping them from publishing it.

 

[twofish-quant]

1) Flexible hours, some people work, they need some rest and flexible hours more than whatever part-time can do for them. the brain needs enough sleep hours to function and learn properly.

Universities will pay your to do academic grunt work. If you are employed doing something other than academic work, it's highly unlikely that you'll have the energy to do professional research.

2) Some people don't like being pushed toward exams, so they don't want to study for marks and "deans honor list." Their goal is to learn and acquire knowledge.

When you go into graduate school, you have to push yourself.

3) They don't want to be in debt for a long time.

Universities pay you for graduate work.

4) It's not their primary goal to write "research papers." Any one can do it and many do it and many many many did it. We can learn it, thanks to wikipedia, google and brain, and LaTex of course. ;)

I can't. I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics, and for me to write a decent paper on the topic of my research, I'd have to spend about two months full time getting up to speed, and the I'd have to spend another six months full time actually doing it. It's not enough when you are researching to "learn stuff", you have to *create* new stuff.

5) They are smart enough. :)

Intelligence isn't a huge factor in being a productive researcher. You need a certain level of intelligence, but persistence is more important.

 

[twofish-quant]

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?

No. The academic rationale behind that is so that you become a brainwashed corporate cog who can shuffle papers for the corporate overlords. If you think about the university educational system, it's really designed to produce white-collar corporate drones.

I read an interview with a bar bouncer. He says that he prefers to deal with white collar lawyers and accountants. The reason being that lawyers and accountants will scream at you, but someone with a college education is unlikely to actually punch you in the face, whereas someone with a high school education is more likely to get physical. This is what college teaches you. You will complain about the professor, you will scream, you will get annoyed, but in the end you will either turn in the assignment and get that piece of paper saying that you will obey orders, or you get tossed out.

Colleges are young adult day care. In other societies, you have different institutions that do the same thing. There is the military which also teaches you to take orders. So you want to rebel? OK, that means that you have no money, no power. You are likely to be totally harmless, and if you end up doing something that is threatening, you end up in jail.

If you want to read more about this, there are tons of authors. Chomsky, Foucalt, Gramsci, Mills, Habermas, Bourdieu. I think it's interesting and depressing. If you look at the earlier works, it's "the system stinks! let's have a revolution". Today it's "the system is better than what happened after the revolution!"

The wikipedia page is cultural reproduction.

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. :)

Q: So why do people pay?
A: Because they get a piece of paper that gets exchanged for a salaried white collar job at the end of it. You end up having to write memos and reports and all this other stuff.

This is an economic reality, and once you realize the economic reality, it becomes obvious why alternative systems of accreditation don't quite work. The point of the degree is to prove that you are willing to go through crap to get the degree.

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.

For science Ph.D.'s, there are few real courses after the first two years. It's all personalize brainwashing after that. Master programs and Ph.D.'s are completely different worlds. In the case of science Ph.D.'s, the ruling elite will give you a bit more freedom to think of new stuff, because it would be bad if someone in some other country thought of it first.

 

[dijkarte]

If you are employed doing something other than academic work, it's highly unlikely that you'll have the energy to do professional research.

I completely agree with you. Non-academic professional work requires a lot of focus and dedication, especially what I do, which involves researching and trying to solve problems unsolved by academia or find a practical solution to some academic papers...this makes me run out of time for sitting in a class and looking at head-projector lecture notes :) trying to decipher the professor's sentences.

 

[Robert1986]

Oh I forgot you will be reading it, so yeah I mean knowledge balance, as they told us. You get educational balance at earlier stages of learning prior to university. Otherwise it's useless and irrelevant.

What are you even trying to say? This makes no sense.

History, languages and literature are science subjects that are related to math, physics and engineering?!

Who ever said that they were related?!? You know, you have a horrible habit of infering some of the most insane things from what people write, and then you have the gall to critisise the other person for the same exact thing!

Well my advice to you go back to high-school, study harder and learn how to read and communicate. After you done, better you major in politics.

Ahh, I get it. You have no idea what 'liberal arts' really are! Here is a wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts

So, the entire point of a liberal arts education (which is what we have in the US) is to educate a person so that he will have a broad base of knowledge. It is not to turn out 1 dimensional people who know a lot about one area. That is what grad school is for, which, interestingly, you don't want to do.

Math needs a cool minded personality, not a nerd.

What on Earth are you even talking about?

 

[twofish-quant]

this makes me run out of time for sitting in a class and looking at head-projector lecture notes :) trying to decipher the professor's sentences.

Academia != classes. If going to lecture doesn't make sense, I don't go to lecture.

But sitting in a boring class trying not to go insane is good practice for long meetings in the non-academic world.

I'm actually confused as the point you are trying to make. If you are trying to argue that there is enough material online to have someone learn the raw material involved for a bachelors math and physics degree, I agree with you, but the problem is that employers are looking for *cultural* traits as well as technical traits, and being able to sit in a lecture hall looking at a professor muttering non-sense is good training when you a senior manager does the same thing.

 

[bpatrick]

Is Academia really necessary to become a mathematician? What about self-taught mathematicians? If someone has the maturity to learn by themselves, why need to go to university and spend time and money to sit in an overcrowded class with who knows what kind of lecture you get...?

The only advantage I see is that someone cannot teach at the university unless they have a related graduate degree. But what about publishing math papers? Do we need to have this graduate academia license to publish something or author a book?

I consider myself a self-taught mathematician. I have a bachelors in musicology and a masters in trumpet performance. My math background in a "formal" academic setting is minimal. I definitely think it's possible to learn on your own. In some cases and at some stages of mathematical development it may be significantly less productive though.

The last time I really had a "formal" course in mathematics was 10th grade when I took calculus. My last two years of high school math were independent studies in linear algebra and differential equations (because my school only offered courses up to AP calculus). I had little interaction with my teacher. My independent study was during her "prep period" where she graded papers for her other classes, made lecture notes, etc... I sat in her room quietly reading and doing problems out of a few books, shoved my work in a folder and that was about it. My independent study "teacher" looked at the work I had in the folder each quarter (didn't grade it or anything), wrote a brief test for me based on how far I had gotten (random problems out of her old college LA/DE book), I took it, she graded it. She gave me the test back, if I had a problem wrong, I was able to correct it and get half credit for it ... I almost always got a 9/10 usually for a stupid mistake, then corrected it for a 95%, which gave me an A for the marking period ... pretty cut and dry.

In college, I majored in music but also enrolled in math and science classes that didn't require attendance (other than lab courses) and made sure to look on ratemyprofessor or talk to students and find sections that didn't have required weekly coursework. I usually scheduled hours of work at my part-time job during class but make sure to take off work the days that were scheduled exam periods. I taught myself the material, often from a few old $5 textbooks rather than the $100+ one that was required for the course. That worked out well for me with all my math/science stuff.

After years of being a professional musician, I eventually found myself doing math again. I am currently doing what is considered "graduate-level" stuff and I haven't had a "formal" class since the late 1990s, so it's definitely possible to teach yourself. Keep in mind it might not be as efficient to do this vs if you were actually in academia due to the support you get from the university system.

I can definitely see this being an issue later on with a PhD. Assume I had to keep up the slower pace I've been working at because I still need to provide for my basic physiological needs. How likely am I to complete something original if it takes me 50-100% longer than the "normal" 3-5 years to crank out my dissertation? Might life happen and I abandon what I'm working on? Might somebody have already solved my problem during the 6-10 years I might be working on it with ~1000 PhDs being granted each year in the US and maybe a 1 in 10 chance they're in the same broad field (excuse that guess if it's totally off, just a round number to serve as an example). How much more time will it take when I don't have an adviser to guide me, tell me what to read, regularly ask me what I've been up to this week, discuss my dissertation problem, etc...

I guess it's possible to eventually work with somebody as an "informal adviser" but good luck finding somebody to volunteer their time taking on a (for lack of better words) "PhD student" who wasn't actually part of their university, and who might only able to devote part of their time to research.

Anyway, my two cents are that: sure it's possible to self study. I think it's much easier / practical to self study all of the topics leading up to PhD qualifier material, especially now when there's: Khan Academy, MIT's OCW, full courses on youtube from Harvey Mudd, Stanford, Princeton, Indian Institute of Technology, USF, Harvard extension school, etc...

 

[dijkarte]

Anyway, my two cents are that: sure it's possible to self study. I think it's much easier / practical to self study all of the topics leading up to PhD qualifier material, especially now when there's: Khan Academy, MIT's OCW, full courses on youtube from Harvey Mudd, Stanford, Princeton, Indian Institute of Technology, USF, Harvard extension school, etc...

This is very true. We live now in an advanced technology era, we can get any information while sitting on couch at home which was unavailable to 17th century people. It takes me nothing to order any book I want, I could even explore the book content online and see how useful it's. Things that were not available to many ancient scientists and professors. Guess what I pick my lectures online I want to watch, and many are very interesting and informative. The difference between me and another person attending the class that I can pause, repeat, look up some terms there, no pushing for exams, or worrying about tuition fees. I can enjoy the learning process and taste and digest the information.

Thank you all for your replies, and making this thread active for a few days.

Now topic closed.

 

[alexmahone]

Now topic closed.

Says who? You're not even a mod.

 

[dijkarte]

I say topic closed then it's. I'm the original poster so I decide. :)

Now time to sleep. Zzzzzzz...Zzz...

 

[Pyrrhus]

Ok, let's put it this way.

There are two paths: Go to graduate school, or spend years trying to do everything on your own while balancing a job to be able to subsist.

If you choose graduate school, you will be able to do research, and graduate with at least some publications. These publications may or may not be important. In addition, you will graduate with a network of researchers doing work in your area of interest, and you will have learned other useful skills to do research such as grant writing (or money to fund your research), and yes there is self-teaching, time management, and self-direction. Also, you will be collaborating with the authors of the textbooks, and journal articles YOU will be reading.

If you choose do it on your own, you will be able to spend years reading, and with luck publish one or two papers that may or may not have a significant contribution. Yes, there will be also a lot of self-teaching.

Now notice, that if you look up the credentials of the authors of the books you are studying from, of the journal articles, and other sources about 99% went to graduate school. Not to mention that those that went to graduate school likely to get a chance to work with the author of those books.

You choose. Will you rather spend 4-5 years to become a researcher under the supervision of people that are PROVEN as researchers (authors of the textbooks you want to self study from) or do it on your own with no experience or direction?

Graduate School -> Publications, Network, Skills required to succeed in research, Insider's information, contact with top researchers...

Self Taught Isolated -> Waiting for science to be put in books, no access to journal articles (the cutting edge is published there), and no contact with the authors (or their former students) of the book you are reading from.

For my case, the decision was simple. I have taught myself many skills such as programming, but I still went to graduate school, because it is CONVENIENT. My advisor is at the top of his field. I LEARNED ALOT from HIM, and also He put me in contact with other top researchers. I was able to do research abroad in Australia with other top researchers. I am now connected to the network He provided to me. In addition, I will be moving to do research after I graduate at other top places. I don't think I could have done as much as I have done without this agglomeration benefits.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Here is a suggestion for dijkarte.

You mentioned you have an undergraduate degree.

Apply for a Master's, but the RESEARCH option. Only accept if they provide funding, or you could do it part time. You mention you work, don't you?

The small benefit of spending a year (I am sure you can finish it in a year) to finish it will be to connect yourself to such a network, and also connect yourself to someone that knows the area you want to do research in. Furthermore, Learn of the current of state of research in your area.

After you graduate, you can still keep contact with your former advisor, and any other friends that you made during the program. That way you can keep up to date with regards to conferences, seminars, which means up to date with advancements to that area you want to work in.

Also a Master's should get you at least one publication, and basically a foot in your research area.

 

[dijkarte]

Thanks you a lot Pyrrhus. I greatly appreciate your suggestion. I will consider this.

 

[Robert1986]

That is a good suggestion and it is exactly what I am doing. However, I wouldn't try to finish it in a year. Most likely you will have to take about 10 classes, perhaps two or three can be research classes. But the ones you are going to take will be pretty hard. I would aim for doing it in 1.5 to two years.

 

[victor.raum]

Yet, I still can't force myself to give my academic life over to a school for 4 years to get a bachelors degree.

In that case you are hosed if you want to do academic research. If you want to be a professional reseacher, you will essentially have to give your *entire life* to the system..

The main point is that when doing professional research work you're at least getting paid to give yourself over to the system, which is perfectly fair in my opinion. The insane thing is that for an undergrad degree you're giving over your life just the same, but this time you're the one paying the system for the privilege, which doesn't make any sense at all in my view.

It was that realization that triggered my exit from my undergrad degree program, and my reentry into the more sensible working world.

 

[noobilly]

The main point is that when doing professional research work you're at least getting paid to give yourself over to the system, which is perfectly fair in my opinion. The insane thing is that for an undergrad degree you're giving over your life just the same, but this time you're the one paying the system for the privilege, which doesn't make any sense at all in my view.

It was that realization that triggered my exit from my undergrad degree program, and my reentry into the more sensible working world.

Well you are compensated for "giving over your life to the system and paying for it", the compensation is better career prospects and, to some extent, more social respect. It makes sense to me at least.

 

[dijkarte]

How much do they get paid on average? And I don't mean scientists or the quite few geniuses working in research facilities. I think here we should distinguish between someone whose main interest in life is writing research papers and teach in academia, or someone whose goal is to learn. Let's leave writing research papers alone and focus on the goal of pure learning, then we cannot argue that going to college does make someone more educated about the subject than another person who did not took the same path, but decided to teach themselves. The opposite is also true, it could be that academic person is more professional and knowledgeable about their subject of study. Thus someone can decide either paths based on experience, confidence about teaching themselves, base knowledge (some other related degree maybe), and available and accessible resources.
I have an undergraduate degree in theoretical physics, what prevents me from learning, at least to undergraduate level, computer science, for example?
Another person got a Masters of Biology, they want to learn more math which is required by their work nature, and they find themselves they need more of math probably subjects covered in higher graduate courses, but they cannot afford time for uni then then do it yourself. My job does not involve writing academic literatures, this is not how I make living neither I intend to, out of interest, until I discover something or solve an unsolved problem and need to publish my work then if whatever I found even worths it and going to add to the subject significantly, it will get to the world no matter how and who writes it. My point is about pure knowledge and ideas.

"Social respect", "Titles", "Career success" are not the goals or advantages I'm talking about here. These are irrelevant to pure knowledge and innovation, and to $$$ as well.

 

[Mépris]

You're in Europe, yes? Things are a little different there. France has the M1 and M2, which together, results in a Master's degree, according to the Bologna process. Germany just has a two year master's, where the second year is research only. The Master's by Research degrees are more common in the UK - often called MRes or MPhil. These would require paying tuition fees though!

 

[Robert1986]

How much do they get paid on average? And I don't mean scientists or the quite few geniuses working in research facilities. I think here we should distinguish between someone whose main interest in life is writing research papers and teach in academia, or someone whose goal is to learn. Let's leave writing research papers alone and focus on the goal of pure learning, then we cannot argue that going to college does make someone more educated about the subject than another person who did not took the same path, but decided to teach themselves. The opposite is also true, it could be that academic person is more professional and knowledgeable about their subject of study. Thus someone can decide either paths based on experience, confidence about teaching themselves, base knowledge (some other related degree maybe), and available and accessible resources.
I have an undergraduate degree in theoretical physics, what prevents me from learning, at least to undergraduate level, computer science, for example?
Another person got a Masters of Biology, they want to learn more math which is required by their work nature, and they find themselves they need more of math probably subjects covered in higher graduate courses, but they cannot afford time for uni then then do it yourself. My job does not involve writing academic literatures, this is not how I make living neither I intend to, out of interest, until I discover something or solve an unsolved problem and need to publish my work then if whatever I found even worths it and going to add to the subject significantly, it will get to the world no matter how and who writes it. My point is about pure knowledge and ideas.

"Social respect", "Titles", "Career success" are not the goals or advantages I'm talking about here. These are irrelevant to pure knowledge and innovation, and to $$$ as well.

If you can learn about a topic as an undergrad, then you can probably learn it by yourself, especially with the internet. Really, you should "self-teach" most of the stuff you learn as an undergrad in the first place; the lectures are just there to clarify things and to give you a chance to ask questions. So, if you just want to learn more, and you don't care about the other things, then it would be crazy for you to go back to school.

But, I was under the impression that your ultimate goal was to do a lot of research; is this incorrect? If it is indeed the case that you want to do pure research, my argument is that it seems much easier to do research if you work at a university where you are essentially getting paid to do research.

 

[dcpo]

The Master's by Research degrees are more common in the UK - often called MRes or MPhil. These would require paying tuition fees though!

Just a note about the MPhil. Most if not all Ph.D courses in the UK begin as an MPhil., the student takes an oral exam at some point around the two year mark to transfer to the full Ph.D. If the student fails this exam, or chooses not to transfer they are able to submit material for an MPhil degree instead. As a result of this many people technically doing MPhils are funded and have their fees waved.