How can people say doing a ph.d is hard??? Literally only 0.01% of ph.d students fail their defence.
If you want a ph.d (and have the grades for it) then just do it. It's a free upgrade button.
Why do people stop at masters? (even if it's a very small % because people just continue to the phd)
Cuz they fucking suck
Consider that getting a PhD at a good university is expensive as fuck, also a lot of PhDs go up to 5 years which is a lot, and you most likely won't be able to work and get an income during that time unless you got a scholarship.
you get paid to do it. Doing a ph.d is free. (at least in STEM)
>Literally only 0.01% of ph.d students fail their defence.
If the fail rate was higher, people would be less likely to pay for the PhD since the risk would be higher; and at least in my country (some South American shithole) such degrees are a pretty lucrative market and never free, contrary to what says. That might explain why they generally suck and reflect jack shit about the individual who possesses one: they are not a programme for the purpose of advancing science, but a ticket you buy to inflate your career and the institution's earnings, much like people bought indulgences off the Catholic Church.
That said, if you are serious about your field, think a PhD will help you gain insights about it and can afford it in terms of money, time and dedication then go for it.
>If the fail rate was higher, people would be less likely to pay for the PhD
See
Recently graduated PhD here (mech engg).
There are elements of truth in both of these posts. I was paid $23k my first year (basic department minimum), $37k years two and three (scholarship), and $50k year four (scholarship + teaching fellowship). I paid $6k in tuition a year.
I was paid neither the least nor the most. My department sets a floor at $23k for all PhD students, but some earn as much as $60k.
However, an early-career engineer with a masters degree can expect significantly more than this. Assuming an industry job of around $80k versus a stipend of $23k, that's $250k in opportunity cost you're giving up to pursue a a PhD. Given a 65-year retirement age at a 27-year graduation age with your PhD, you'd have to make at least a $7k salary premium over a masters degree just to break even, over the course of your career, and there is no guarantee of that whatsoever (especially in engineering). That grows to $8k if you take five years instead of four.
In terms of wealth, a STEM PhD does basically nothing. It doesn't help or hurt you significantly at all. But it does open doors if you want to do research professionally. If you love what you do, its a no-risk ticket to keep doing it.
Thats only referring to people who even attempted to defend. I'm fairly certain that the majority of phd students don't even make it to defending (they either fail their qualifying exams, or just drop out for one reason or another).
Your advisor typically won't let you defend unless he/she is certain you will pass. So looking at the pass rate of defenses is stupid as fuck. If you have made it far enough to defend you are golden.
Why get a PhD unless you want to be an academic? Maybe your field is different, but most of the jobs I'm looking will hire you with a Masters, and you don't lose 2-4 years of your life writing a dissertation when you could be working and progressing in your career.
Opportunity costs are a thing.
I'm this asshole posting again: I think the defense-failure rate is a bad way to measure the difficulty of a program, since the typical way to 'fail' a PhD student would be at the candidacy stage, if possible. If major faults aren't found at that point, then dissolving their examination committee or recommending their withdraw is the typical (albeit non-binding) route.
It might be better to look at completion rate. At least at my schools (both Canadian, for what its worth), Masters degree completion rates were in the 75% range, while PhD completion rates were closer to 55 to 60%. Undergraduate rates are in the 80% range.
The defense is a formality of sorts, and typically a competent advisor would not let their student even attempt unless they thought there was a very high chance of success, to avoid embarrassment to them as much as the student. If they don't think the student is up to snuff, a compassionate advisor would have a frank and explicit conversation with their student about setting some reasonable, obtainable career goals.
hahAA using the defense failure rate as a metric for difficulty. If only academic advisors existed to prevent this from happening, if only even if you "fail" a defense they will ask you to remedy the problem and re present. If you are still in HS you shouldnt post on this board
hey ph.d guy.
I never know how to answer this :
what if a colleague or student comes up to you and asks you "should I call you doctor" ? What do you amswer?
seems to be what i hear a lot. there are far fewer jobs in industry that require a Ph.D than a master's.
this
>How can people say doing a ph.d is hard??? Literally only 0.01% of ph.d students fail their defence.
First, brainlets are typically not allowed into PhD programs to begin with. Second, the dropout rate is very high. Half of my cohort has left for tempting job offers, and a couple from pussy mental breakdowns. Third, your advisor and committee shouldn't let you defend unless they know you'll succeed. They with either delay you by another semester to fix it, or tell you to graduate with a terminal Masters instead.
what is opportunity cost?
'Better not just in case it causes confusion in a medical emergency'
>Literally only 0.01% of ph.d students fail their defence.
that's because the ones that would fail aren't allowed to defend. they master out or leave without any degree at all.
Titles of address are a personal preference thing as much as anything, and for me its pretty context dependent. The more formal the setting, the more likely that I will ask to be called 'Doctor'. On my business cards and personal website, I list myself with no title and just clarify my education and professional standing with post-nominals. I pretty much always go by my first name, personally and professionally, as opposed to Mister or Doctor.
I do teach, and I will normally introduce myself to a new class with my first name, and then clarify to my students that its fine if they wish to address me as Doctor or Professor [Last Name] (which I had to start doing because they started calling me "Doctor [First Name]"...).
Since I have an academic gig, almost all of my colleges have PhDs and we all refer to each other by first-names. If I'm introducing someone for a special seminar or something like that, I'll use Doctor (or Professor, if they're a full-bird prof). I'd disagree with that I don't think any of these scenarios result in any ambiguity for a medical crisis, and they're just formalities in very specific scenarios.
that's helpful, thanks
There are two scenarios where I would want to be called Doctor:
1. A student who wishes to address me formally can use it if they wish, but my first name is fine
2. If my name was going to be announced or written on something where it would be typical to say or write a prefix, I would want it to be correct (i.e. Dr. not Mr.).
Basically, don't call me Mr. because that isn't accurate, but using my first name works just fine.
>Basically, don't call me Mr.
shit. I hope my professors don't think like you then.
This varies substantially between cultures, for what its worth. In many Asian countries, its seen as exceptionally rude to under-title someone. So, for instance, I submitted a paper to a Chinese conference as an undergraduate, and my acceptance letter titled me 'Professor' just to avoid any possibility of under-titling. Meanwhile, in Switzerland, its common to address even full, chaired professors as "Herr/Frau" (Mr/Mrs).
All that aside, its usually not impolite to simply ask the person how they would like to be addressed.
irrelevant to this discussion, faggot
>a STEM PhD does basically nothing
speak for yourself, gay boy
t. math phd concentration in finance working as a quantitative analyst
In Physics, most grad students drop out because the material is too hard and they can't complete their courses.
I think i may end up being one of those kids
Don't throw out your shoulder patting yourself on the back too hard. Your story is an anecdote, not a statistic.
I got a tenure-track job without ever trying too hard. I got it on the first job application I submitted in my life. I never applied to grad school either, just got offered the position. But teaching a large, hundred student undergrad class, odds are that less than one of them will get the same career I do. So do I give general career advice to a broad audience based on what happened to me? Or do I have the self-awareness to know that such advice would not be helpful?
I'm in mech eng masters.
I am concerned that I was going to have to enter the real world soon.
I was thinking I was going to concurrently do bachelor honors.
This thread has gotten me thinking that maybe I should try to get phd. My grades are good and If I can get payed to study what I am intersted in it seems like a very viable method of procrastination.
are there quant jobs in finance for people with masters in math?
why is everyone a mechanical engineer? Seriously. It's kind of driving me crazy
I bet they can't even design a steam engine with a separate condensor type engineers
normies LOVE the word engineer for some inexplicable reason, and mech e is probably the most intuitive specialty
get mech eng degree, be nice wageslave good boy
it's because for your dissertation you have to make a discovery relevant to that field
Mostly they are confirming that you are the person who actually wrote it. If you are by that stage you should pass I got some hassle with proving an equation in mine but 5 mins later it was all back on track.STEM subject so I did not have to pay.
Quality post
> Quants being the exception
That makes sense
Its a grown up qualification. Everything else has answers in the back of the book. With a PhD you have to break new ground, describe it very clearly and then be able to present it and defend it. Gives you the confidence to make tech decisions because you have been through the academic mangle.
DESU getting stay in the college environment for 3-5 more years is dope. But not the shitty fuckboy environment. The one where people talk about cool research shit all day then go paint the town red and do young people shit.