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

[ZapperZ]

The idea is how much uni gives you professional knowledge over self-taught? Does it always work for all, majority? I've been interacting with PhDs at my work and nothing special about their intellectual abilities or even professional knowledge.

BTW "research" is now another good profit business. So what we call research at graduate level is either unrealistic, inaccurate, or not related. I see it as a literature.

That's why I don't buy the graduate studies especially research ones.

Then I don't understand the reason why you started this thread. You obviously know everything there is to know and you have made up your mind.

Were you really looking for a place to vent? Then you've found the wrong forum.

Zz.

 

[dijkarte]

The only downside to my linear algebra course is lack of motivation. Not really, it was dense enough and the << profanity deleted by Mods >> made it harder for students who were all at elementary level, never seen matrices before.

The only downside to my probability and statistics class is that the average of the class was "F," which is impossible for a class to have such an average but the "teacher" was good at it.

The only down side to my course XXX is that the teacher YYY was an << profanity deleted by Mods >>.

The only downside to my wasted time at university is the huge amount of wasted money.

 

[alexmahone]

That's some impressive motivation. Well done!

Thank you!

You know, it is possible to learn stuff that is not required at a university while studying at a university. As mentioned, most people learn Latex at one point or another to prepare papers. I learned Latex for this reason (to prepare a paper for publication).

I was talking about learning LaTeX as an undergraduate to work out problems. I guess it's possible to learn stuff that is not required if the course isn't too hectic. Unfortunately many university schedules are tight, leaving the student with little time for recreation, let alone learning outside stuff.

Is this what you think they do at universities, memorize things?

At universities, students are forced to memorize theorems, formulas and proofs before their exams. Although this is quite boring, I must admit it has some benefits.

Are you sure you really learned math?

Just because I said that I need to refer to my textbooks every now and then, doesn't mean I didn't learn maths. The fact that I'm able to move forward to the next section after doing the exercise of the previous section, and to the next book after finishing the previous book, is ample evidence that I did. Do you agree? If not, what's your definition of "learning maths"?

 

[homeomorphic]

If you don't see math research as useful, you should watch this (and part 2, etc.),



In some ways, he leaves me unsatisfied. I think we need to do more to connect with the applications and other fields. Math these days is getting pretty obscure for outsiders to be able to come in and use it.

 

[dijkarte]

Were you really looking for a place to vent? Then you've found the wrong forum.

Well it's the right place to vent, this is the spirit of connecting to people, be able to communicate and exchange experiences and details :)

 

[alexmahone]

That's the only downside?
Analogously, the only downside to my algebra class is that we didn't cover groups. The only downside to my linear algebra course is that we didn't cover the Jordan form. The only downside to my analysis course is that we didn't learn epsilon-delta.

That's not exactly trivial.

What's your point?

 

[bcbwilla]

Just because I said that I need to refer to my textbooks every now and then, doesn't mean I didn't learn maths. The fact that I'm able to move forward to the next section after doing the exercise of the previous section, and to the next book after finishing the previous book, is ample evidence that I did. Do you agree? If not, what's your definition of learning maths?

Sorry, what I meant to imply was that if you "really learned math", you'd see that it's not about memorizing formulas. I certainly don't remember all of the formulas in my textbooks. Again, sorry, I didn't mean for that comment to sound insulting.

 

[alexmahone]

Sorry, what I meant to imply was that if you "really learned math", you'd see that it's not about memorizing formulas. I certainly don't remember all of the formulas in my textbooks. Again, sorry, I didn't mean for that comment to sound insulting.

No worries.

But as I said, I think memorizing a few theorems and formulas is essential.

 

[alexmahone]

The only downside to my linear algebra course is lack of motivation. Not really, it was dense enough and the << profanity deleted by Mods >> made it harder for students who were all at elementary level, never seen matrices before.

The only downside to my probability and statistics class is that the average of the class was "F," which is impossible for a class to have such an average but the "teacher" was good at it.

The only down side to my course XXX is that the teacher YYY was an << profanity deleted by Mods >>

The only downside to my wasted time at university is the huge amount of wasted money.

Sorry to hear.

 

[dijkarte]

The best teacher is yourself if you can do it and there are many who can. Remember, there are group learners and independent learners. Group learners always feel more comfortable and confident in learning within a group, let's say social learners. Independent learners on the other had are those who don't need to be in a group to effectively learn and discover.

 

[Pyrrhus]

dijkarte,

Could you write a paper now in mathematics, and get it publish in a peer-reviewed journal?

if you can, please do so, and come back and let us know how we waste our time studying PhDs.

 

[dijkarte]

Could you write a paper now, and get it publish in a peer-reviewed journal?

if you can, please do so, and come back and let us know how we waste our time studying PhDs.

Sure I will. But just to let you know I'm not underestimating your PhDs or anything but you seem to think that if I don't have a PhD then I cannot do it. People are different.

 

[TMFKAN64]

People without PhDs publish papers all of the time. They are called "graduate students".

More seriously, the odds are heavily stacked against you. It isn't completely impossible for a self-taught mathematician to publish good work. (And of course there is the patron saint of self-taught mathematicians, Ramanujan.)

But as is often the case, there is an easy way to do things, and a hard way. You are definitely choosing the hard way.

 

[seobappi]

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 believe self taught is the best process.But it should be a major problem when you will try to publish your papers.

 

[I<3Gauss]

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. The odds are not in your favor, and you will be at a disadvantage compared to someone who did attend graduate school. For example, you will find it harder to get timely feedback from professors, keeping on the right track, or developing a research topic. That's not to say it isn't impossible to do what I suggested, but like I said, anything is possible. Also, while you can learn everything in a graduate program without actually going to graduate school(very hard but not impossible), there is a bit of beaurocracy going on. 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. What you propose sounds good on paper, but we all know that what sounds good on paper may not really in fact be a good solution due to unforeseen technicalities. 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. I agree with you on many points that material in graduate school can be learned if self taught, but empirical evidence suggests that the failure rate for going down such a path is high. Let the buyer beware.

 

[dijkarte]

Lets say I'm authoring a book on DEs while learning the subject. After finishing the book, would it be reviewed and published?

 

[Hobin]

Lets say I'm authoring a book on DEs while learning the subject. After finishing the book, would it be reviewed and published?

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.

 

[AlephZero]

Lets say I'm authoring a book on DEs while learning the subject. After finishing the book, would it be reviewed and published?

No, and no, but you can self-publish it and get some of your friends to review it (or even review it yourself under another name), if that keeps your ego happy.

Employers, publishers, etc stay in business by betting with the odds. Almost everybody who claims they are a self-taught expert in some field but has no formal qualifications turns out to be deluded, a crackpot, or both. The guaranteed costs of wasting time with 9,999 of those completely outweighs the possible benefits of discovering the next Srinivasa Ramanujan.

 

[dijkarte]

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.
This happened and I had this experience. So this is okay by academia. Fair enough.
So in conclusion, you cannot do it without academia and it's risky, "crackpot", and "delusive", better not to, and etc. etc. etc. because it's...outside academia?
Define water. It's liquid substance called water? :)

 

[bcbwilla]

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.

There is a difference between reviewing a subject before teaching it, and learning it for the first time right before teaching it.

 

[dijkarte]

Yes learning it at the same time while teaching it.

 

[pongo38]

I don't think you could learn Chinese (say) from a book alone. You would need to hear it and speak it in a context. Same with maths. It has a language, and universities are places where you can learn that language with other people doing the same thing. Of course there are difficulties to be overcome, but they are small compared with working on your own.

 

[dijkarte]

Well as I mentioned I'm not working from scratch :), I already have the qualification, age and maturity.

 

[Robert1986]

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.

Where's the fun in that?!? I mean, it is already hard enough to find good math books written by actual mathematicians, I'm sure someone who isn't a mathematician will do a wonderful job. No, I'd much rather read a book by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. :)

 

[Pyrrhus]

I think my point was in half taken in consideration by most. However, let me complete it dijkarte once you publish such a paper, and you have gone through all the hoops, and have moved all the obstacles that you need to publish it, you will understand why is so impractical, and in cases naive to plan to do what you want to do. You could do a PhD, and have the PhD paid by someone else (TA, RA, etc.), and end up in a better position than spending your own time reading books, AND JOURNAL PAPERS (the cutting edge will be in papers, not in books).

 

[Robert1986]

Yes learning it at the same time while teaching it.

Yeah, but there is a critical difference. You see, the more math classes you take, and the mor experience you have doing math, the easier it is for you to learn other areas of math. For example, I took Algebra then Analysis. They were about equal as far as "inherent difficultness" but I had a much easier time with Analysis. Why? Algebra had increased my level of mathematical maturity a little. Then Analysis increased it a little more, and so on. I would imagine that this more or less continues as one progresses as a mathematician.


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.

 

[Pyrrhus]

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.

Yes. ZapperZ already brought this point. It is different LEARNING a topic, and being a PROFESSIONAL at a specific topic. You cannot believe that if you read a book by James Steward on Calculus, you will be doing research just as good as James Stewart? This is a naive claim. Even graduate students doing PhDs have to read, and learn way more beyond the book in order to do any significant contribution.

 

[Pyrrhus]

(And of course there is the patron saint of self-taught mathematicians, Ramanujan.)

Yes, but even Ramanujan did not publish on his own. He had to contact british mathematicians, and ended up with Hardy. It is pure naivety to think that you can isolate yourself, and read books, and do original work these days. You need to be on top with the current advances through seminars, conferences, access to journals...

 

[dijkarte]

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. :)

 

[Robert1986]

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. :)

It depends on what your goals are. If your goal is to write articles and do research, you have basically three options: 1) Be a professor and do what profs do 2) Have some sort of research job in industry/gubment 3) Have a job doing something completely unrelated to math research and do research as a hobby.

In 1 & 2 you MUST have Ph.D. (well, a Master's would get you by in some colleges and SOME research positions). 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!


So, if you want to do math research, the most sensible thing is to stop whining, realize that professional mathematicians know more than you and get a Ph.D.!


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.

 

[TMFKAN64]

Yes, but even Ramanujan did not publish on his own. He had to contact British mathematicians, and ended up with Hardy.

Oh, I agree. And that fact that we have to reach back nearly 100 years to find an example of a self-taught mathematician making important contributions (and still needing assistance to publish!) should illustrate exactly *how* difficult the non-academic route is.

 

[victor.raum]

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.

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.

 

[dkotschessaa]

dijkarte, I felt the same as you awhile ago, which is why I'm so blunt about this. I made all the same claims you did and said all the same phrases about it being about a piece of paper, a money making business, etc. etc. I realized it was just some gripe I had about academia because I felt slighted by it. The first time I tried to go to college I got screwed out of my education because of finances. So I felt many ways to justify my lack of education and how I didn't need it.

Had lots of arguments with my wife about it, who has a masters degree. I told her about all the idiots with comp sci degrees I had to put up with every day at my job (helpdesk and network admin.)

But anyway, that was all venting. I had to majorly put my ego aside, suck it up, and go back. It's been terrific. I know you already have one bachelors, but if you go back, it'll be very different. You have more experience. Your relationships with colleagues and professors will be different. If you've done a lot of studying already they'll be pretty impressed. But it'll still kick your *** at times - especially graduate studies, and you need that *** kicking to push yourself to do things even you didn't think were possible. And you're going to hate it some times and complain about it a lot. This is all necessary for growth. It's largely an ego thing.

-DaveK

 

[dkotschessaa]

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.

 

[Robert1986]

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.

Yes, and you probably don't know where your doctors went to med school, where your accountant went to school, where the architect who designed your house studied, etc. Why? Because there are professional organsations that do this for you (and, of course, you pay for this service as a portion of the bill you pay the person.) The same thing goes for textbook authors. If Spivak hadn't been positively reviewed by a bunch of profs. then you wouldn't have it. And to get to the point where manuscripts are being sent to profs., it has to be OK'd by some publisher. And for this to happen, chances are the author is going to have some credential to let an editor know that his book might be worth reading.