Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Physics Student Earns PhD at Age 89

brown.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 337 posts

Re: Physics Student Earns PhD at Age 89

#91

Post by soheil »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #85
grayclhn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IME (US) the typical successful phd student works 60-80 hours a week, so… good luck working twice that hard for 5 years.

Let’s assume this is a CS PhD (so no “lab” work). Is this person doing 60 hours of actual research a week? If I did a PhD while working full time, I would expect to do purely research. I’m not interested in teaching or grading papers or anything non-dissertation related. Btw, this is how most people do their PhDs here. It’s a quick in and out 3 year seal-team like operation. Caveat: We see Ph.D as a degree you do aft…

Where is this?

Re: Physics Student Earns PhD at Age 89

#92

Post by tobmlt »

azhenley wrote: post #5
tombert wrote: post #3

This is really cool. I'm 30 right now, and only just recently finished my bachelors and have been looking to get a PhD, but it's really hard to find a program that will let you work full time while doing it. It doesn't help that a part of me does sort of feel "too old" to do this sometimes. The PhD system in the US is really tailored around the assumption that you haven't entered the corporate world yet. Anyway, it's…

Professor here. You definitely aren’t too old, but I would never take on a PhD student that wants to continue working elsewhere. A PhD is a full-time job. It took me 6.5 years and was hard enough with very little outside distractions.

Experiences vary. I was just at the point of qualifying exams when a full time job op came up in a tightly related field. They (profs and managers all) understood, my new co-workers mostly being phds themselves, and I hired on at 32 hrs a week for full time - health insurance etc, and dropped my dicey gov research funding. I loved every second of working mon-thurs, phd by,… every other spare second. But I could live on chewing gum, beers, and ideas at that age, I guess. I also took about 6 years all up. God it was fun when it was fun.

Re: Physics Student Earns PhD at Age 89

#93

Post by BeetleB »

cg30e wrote: post #71

This is very inspiring. I too am young and been in the work force for several years, but unlike the other comments in this thread I am not settled down as an older student returning to school. I am willing to give up a high paying salary to return back to school as a PhD student and I am not tied down with a mortgage or anything else. I find mathematics simply too interesting to not learn at the highest level. Workin…

Some cautionary comments:

Often your advisor in grad school will force you to focus on what they want rather than what you want to learn. This is less likely in a math department, but more likely in a CS one. As with everything, it all depends on your advisor.

The PhD is replete with hoops you have to take that will be orthogonal to your goal of learning (e.g. spending a lot of your time doing HW on the professor's pet topic when taking a course). Someone I know who retired somewhat young (early 50's) enrolled in a PhD program because he loves to learn. He dropped out within two years because he found it fairly inefficient in learning the topics he wanted to learn about (he had a career on mathematical topics and can handle the math). Unlike younger folks, time is precious for him, and being efficient is more important to someone in their 50s than in their 20s.

If all you care about is learning and not the actual piece of paper in the end, it may be more efficient to get a less demanding job and use your spare time studying what you want to study. Do it right and you'll make more money than you would as a student, and potentially learn more than you would in grad school.

Finally, PhD is about research. Yes, you will learn a lot, but learning is not the goal. A lot of people drop out because they realized they loved learning much more than doing research, which will involve large chunks of your time being unproductive. If you plan to do a PhD, you will have to draw a line at some point and say "OK, those 10-100 things there that really interest me? I have to drop them forever so I can do research." If you opt not to do research, you can learn a lot more.

Re: Physics Student Earns PhD at Age 89

#94

Post by BeetleB »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #83
soheil wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about working harder than your peers? If you're 2x harder working than the avg phd student shouldn't you be able to dedicate half or a third of that time to work and still finish the phd in 5 years?

I'm not sure what your ideal of a good PhD student is; there's no measurable level of "good enough" that once met allows you to do a bunch of other things. It's supposed to be an all-consuming, single-focus period of intense research and knowledge generation.

> It's supposed to be an all-consuming, single-focus period of intense research and knowledge generation.

This is mostly a recent phenomenon. Definitely not true for many I knew, nor of their professors when they were students.

Lots of people got a PhD by just being disciplined and working 8-5 on it in the usual time frames. I wager many still do.

Re: Physics Student Earns PhD at Age 89

#95

Post by shoyer »

wanderingmind wrote: post #78

For all the fantasy here, let me remind you doing a PhD at an early age is one of the worst things you can do to your financial security (CS Ph.D being a major exception). It does not teach any employable skills, leads to a very high level of depression/anxiety compared to regular jobs and creates a huge opportunity cost where you miss out saving money early that has true compounding capability. The 2019 Nature surve…

A PhD is certainly not for everyone (or even most), but it's rather unfair to say that it does not teach any employable skills. Even PhDs who go on to work in completely unrelated fields learn how to make progress on poorly defined problems and to advance the frontier of human knowledge. And a PhD is also of course a hard prerequisite for career in academia or research.

As for that survey of PhD students, I suspect you would get similarly dismal reviews of parenthood from parents of 0-5 year old children -- but of course that doesn't mean that nobody should have children! A better survey would ask PhD students how they feel about the experience well after they are done with it.

Re: Physics Student Earns PhD at Age 89

#96

Post by sipior »

tombert wrote: post #44
melvinmt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, part-time PhD's are pretty common in Europe. They also commonly take 3-4 years instead of 6...

Which I find weird; are European/British PhDs generally considered less valuable than American? I didn’t think they were but there’s a lot I don’t know about this.

Generally speaking, American PhD programs expect that you'll be spending at least a year (and generally two) on graduate-level courses before engaging in full-time research. European-style undergraduate degrees are much more focussed, with far fewer "gen-ed" requirements, and you're expected to pick up any extra background material en passant, alongside your thesis work.

It's a philosophical difference that doesn't mean a great deal practically. Often, European undergraduate programs are five years in length, although that's been changing as many European institutions now seem to be moving towards four-year programs. I'm not really sure what's driving that shift, but I think it's done partly in an effort to standardise what it means to have a "bachelor's degree" in terms of what employers can expect between Europe and North America, &cet.

Re: Physics Student Earns PhD at Age 89

#97

Post by skissane »

tombert wrote: post #44
melvinmt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, part-time PhD's are pretty common in Europe. They also commonly take 3-4 years instead of 6...

Which I find weird; are European/British PhDs generally considered less valuable than American? I didn’t think they were but there’s a lot I don’t know about this.

It is the same with undergraduate study. In countries such as the UK or Australia, the majority of Bachelor's degrees take only 3 years, versus a standard 4 year minimum for the US. I get the impression that a lot of US-based hiring managers don't know about this, but even if they do, nobody really seems to care much anyway. Unless it is your very first job after university, what you did as an undergraduate rarely has much significance.

Re: Physics Student Earns PhD at Age 89

#98

Post by amitport »

throw63738 wrote: post #82
wanderingmind wrote: post #78

For all the fantasy here, let me remind you doing a PhD at an early age is one of the worst things you can do to your financial security (CS Ph.D being a major exception). It does not teach any employable skills, leads to a very high level of depression/anxiety compared to regular jobs and creates a huge opportunity cost where you miss out saving money early that has true compounding capability. The 2019 Nature surve…

PhD in information science or mathematics can be good investment. But it is bad idea to star career in academia.

It depends what you want to do and what you're good at.

For example, if you're good in the academy thing and manage to get papers into top tier companies you will finish your PhD faster if you won't take breaks in the industry. If your PhD is on desrible topic (e.g., ML) there are plenty of academy and industry jobs waiting for you, regardless of your work experience.

Re: Physics Student Earns PhD at Age 89

#100

Post by thatguymike »

tombert wrote: post #44
melvinmt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, part-time PhD's are pretty common in Europe. They also commonly take 3-4 years instead of 6...

Which I find weird; are European/British PhDs generally considered less valuable than American? I didn’t think they were but there’s a lot I don’t know about this.

One major difference between UK and US undegraduate courses is that when you study undergraduate at a UK university, you _only_ do courses in your chosen course of study. No faffing about for a year or two picking a major, no time spent filling language requirements or taking interesting-sounding courses to scratch an itch. As a result, UK graduating undergraduates tend to have spent more time in their chosen field of study than US undergraduates have. It has plusses and minuses: I (UK grad) would have loved to have followed my diverse interests more; but on the flipside I do know more about my subject than my US equivalents. I have no proof but it's reasonable to think that would transfer to shorter PHD programs.
Post reply on HN