Can Earning a PhD Require More than Just Scoring in the Top 2% of Contests?

  • Programs
  • Thread starter andytoh
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Phd
In summary, the conversation discusses the correlation between doing well in math or physics contests, particularly at the university level, and being able to earn a PhD. It is suggested that being in the top 2% in a contest may indicate one's ability to solve difficult problems and earn a PhD, but it is not a guarantee. Some people who excel in their courses may not do well in contests, and vice versa. It is also mentioned that the mentality required for contests is different than that for writing a PhD thesis. Ultimately, it is concluded that winning contests does not necessarily determine one's ability to achieve a PhD and that hard work and dedication are also important factors.
  • #36
My Physics teacher has a PhD, his last name is Dykshorn. He said he never did any contests and got out of high school with an 82 in Physics. It's all about creativity, not doing really complex problems that are simple in essence within a given time.
In physics I always see people struggle with simple conceptual questions. For example, we had this question, it was:

Does the electric field point in the direction of increasing or decreasing Electric Potential and no one actually got full marks on that question (some said the right answer but had no proof). Honestly, if you understand the concepts in physics, and I mean truly understand it. No matter how complex a problem, it's all easy. This is why a contest really cannot compare to the level of creativity and ingenuity required of someone earning a PhD.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Blimey, where was this thread bumped from?

Contests are nothing like research.

If you read enough, and have a good memory, you can pretty much pass any test/compete in any contest; you don't even have to understand the subject.

Whereas, you can't learn originality from a book.
 
  • #38
SeReNiTy said:
I believe there is truth in what Andy is writing about. I have seen many students at my university work very hard, and obtain near perfect GPA's. Unfortunately, upon going to a top end graduate program, a lot have come out empty handed...

Contests like the putnam require real mathematical talent, not just hard work.

I think people who do well in the Putnam can probably do well in a PhD, perhaps, but not dong well does not mean you cannot do well in one. There is a huge difference between solving a problem you know there exist a solution to, as opposed to solving a problem that may or may not have a solution(and for that matter, coming up with that problem). You also know that any of those questions on the exam can be solved at a maximum of 3 hours, but while researching, you have no idea when(if ever) you'll solve a certain problem. Yes, creativity is important, but is the Putnam reallllly that creative? I did well simply by learning tricks and do old problems. I had a general idea of what types of questions would be asked, and simply attacked it with that in mind. It isn't THAT difficult to figure out. In my experience, the attitude I take while researching, and the attitude I have while studying for a contest are completely different.
 
  • #39
the beauty of research is that sometimes you don't even know the question.
 
  • #40
i swear for being reasonably smart the posters on this forum sure do have low self-esteem.

any way intelligence is irrelevant; you don't pursue a PhD for the sake of PhD, you do work that you enjoy and along the way you become knowledgeable enough to be called a doctor. I'm sure that not everyone that gets a PhD solves the poincare conjecture hence i infer there are many ways to contribute and still get one in math. In physics I'm sure the requirement for contribution is even more nebulous.
 
  • #41
ice109 said:
i swear for being reasonably smart the posters on this forum sure do have low self-esteem.

Most people have low self-esteem and are insecure. Our society runs on that.
 
  • #42
Here's better test to see if you're ph.d materials or not.

You find studying mathematics and thinking about mathematical things more fun than watching...youtube.

Then, I guarantee your success.
 
  • #43
Here's an even better test to see if you are Ph.D. material or not.

Find a wall. Bang your head against it. Keep doing that for an hour.

If you find yourself thinking about stopping before the hour is up, you probably aren't Ph.D. material.
 
  • #44
What are you trying to get at? If you mean banging your head in a literal sense then that's complete rubbish no matter how you look at it. Assuming that I'm not way off track in reading between the lines, it is very important to have determination but if you don't recognise your own limitations then you won't make the most efficient use of your time.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
this question is slightly off topic , but what's the difference between a pHd and a masters?
 
  • #46
Benzoate said:
this question is slightly off topic , but what's the difference between a pHd and a masters?

An MS is usually given for a year or two of course work.

A PhD usually has a year or two of course work as well, but the main component is a piece of original research that is described in the PhD thesis. (Completing the thesis is usually the most time-consuming part of getting a PhD, and is where people who drop out of PhD programs usually fail.)
 
  • #47
TMFKAN64 said:
An MS is usually given for a year or two of course work.

A PhD usually has a year or two of course work as well, but the main component is a piece of original research that is described in the PhD thesis. (Completing the thesis is usually the most time-consuming part of getting a PhD, and is where people who drop out of PhD programs usually fail.)

don't you do research when attempting to complete a masters? I thought writing a thesis was a requirement for earning a masters?

typically do students earned there masters first and then try for a pHD or ,once they complete undergrad, go straight for their pHd
 
  • #48
Exactly what an MS program entails is very dependent on the particular school. Some schools do require a thesis, but others do not. However, the major component of the degree at any school is still the coursework. Even if research is required by a particular MS program, the acceptible standard is usually much lower than that of a Ph.D. thesis. (An MS is a much quicker degree... you are usually expected to complete it in a year or two of full-time study. A Ph.D. typically takes 5 years, if not more.)

Usually, students with good undergraduate preparation who are certain that they want to get a Ph.D. go straight into a Ph.D. program. However many get an MS first and then decide to go on later. (To make things even more confusing, many programs that offer only a Ph.D. often award MS along the way if the student asks. For example, Stanford and Berkeley have Ph.D. only programs in physics, but you can get an MS at both once your coursework is out of the way.)
 

Similar threads

Replies
50
Views
6K
Replies
36
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
816
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Back
Top