YMN The Young Mathematicians' Network
Serving the Community of Young Mathematicians
Sections: Front Page   Career   Diaries   Editors   Work and Family Life   Grad Life   Job Search   Misc   Paths to Math   Research   Teaching   Undergrad Life   Events   Frequently Asked Questions   News
PhD applicants continue to be misinformed Grad Life
By Anonymous Hero
Posted Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 06:41:52 AM PDT
Most students enter PhD programs building upon their knowledge gained in undergrad or masters programs, and expect the PhD to be some sort of natural continuation...they find this is not so once they are in PhD programs.

Post a Comment

This is too late...hence, doctoral programs are not doing a good job at informing, just informing, prospective doctoral students about what it takes to earn a PhD, how different it is in nature, attrition, job prospects, etc. Perhaps this is done deliberately for departments to rise up in rankings, to match limited employment opportunities under tenure track positions, etc. But I think this is counterproductive! At least doctoral departments should emphasize(put on their www's prominently next to doctoral program outlines)how a PhD is NOT any natural continuation of masters or undergrad and how high an attrition rate traditionally is...otherwise, they are wasting their resources and confusing an applicant at the other end. They should care about this.

A word on their education strategy: at least in theory-oriented technical fields, math, econ, etc. professors only LECTURE theory from textbooks, but then ask doctoral students to solve some problem sets on exams, which profs refer to as applications of theory. They lecture and they grade you on such solutions exclusively. This is not what is expected in masters or undergrad. You can master a theory pretty well like some profs have, and yet cannot solve those problem sets under time constraints, or yet. Exactly this strategy is used in prelims. This is not healthy. I think first you let a student master an advanced theory (i.e. what profs lecture in class) and at a later stage, during exploring research, students start to apply, challenge, modify, etc. the common theories that they've been led to absorb well...In other words, this is the NEXT stage! This takes yet another portion of time. Prelims shouldn't be conditional on solutions to some idiosyncratic problems under time constraints either. It's too early. This should be very clear and put on department's WWW as well: message to prospective PhD's: you gotta know most of the PhD theory already because you are gonna be killing some problem sets we are assigning and in now time!

The chronicle article is right in arguing that doctoral depts have implicit contracts with students to see them through....Much like JD's MBA's and med schools legitimately do. One or two students will always drop out, that's fine, but an attrition rate of 50% says about something inherently flawed in the system that is deliberately kept there, don't you agree?!
< Fields Medals Awarded | age & math >
Display: Sort:
PhD applicants continue to be misinformed | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)
[new] Yes, it is different (none / 0) (#1)
by halewis on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 07:08:48 AM PDT

I agree that getting a Ph.D. in mathematics is different from getting a Bachelor's or Master's Degree. What I find myself disagreeing with, though, is the idea that the doctoral programs have a responsibility to emphasize this -- it's true across the board, so it seems more likely that students looking into any type of doctoral program should know this ahead of time, ideally from talking to their own professors and to the students at the schools they are interested in applying into.

We had difficulty a few years ago with the undergrads where I teach getting into Ph.D. programs and dropping out right away. This concerned our faculty, and more recently we've made a big push to talk to students who were thinking of going on about the nitty-gritty of the programs, about finding programs that seemed to support them at the level they were looking for, and also about finding different ways to prepare as an undergrad for the more independent work they'd encounter (by going to REUs, by doing independent study, and by taking our just-developed-for-this-reason undergraduate research course.) At least initially, it looks like this is helping.

You also raised the idea of attrition rates. My understanding is that this is hard to formally compute: some programs require a Master's Degree, so students who drop out initially would never be counted, while an institution that accepts only a Bachelor's degree might have a higher drop-out rate. Some students change their mind, either getting a higher degree than they'd initially planned, or deciding to leave NOT because of the program, but because they realize that a Ph.D. is not what they want after all. I think the best way to get a good idea of what happens to students who enter is to talk to current students. A prospective student should visit the school, maybe more than once, and talk to current students about their experiences. This is more important than any disclaimers that a department could put in their web site, in my opinion.

I hope that the next year goes better for you. I know many people who didn't pass their prelims at first, but then went on to be successful (I was one: I failed one that I'd fully expected to pass, and I'm convinced that what got me through the next time was that for several months I met daily with three other grad students and worked on old questions. Studying by doing old problems and talking about them turned out to be much more useful than the independent studying that had worked just find as an undergrad.)

Good luck!



[new] hard knocks (none / 0) (#2)
by vizioneer on Sun Aug 27, 2006 at 12:11:40 PM PDT

Certainly the grad program itself has nothing to lose by using students for work done while they're there, and bank on a fair fraction of them falling out. Caveat emptor. There really is some naivete from students re. programs and what it entails and that in fact most programs won't care too much if you fail prelims or can't complete a thesis even after years of work towards it. So, it really is going from getting a grade and getting a degree no questions asked to completing original work. Makes one question if it becomes a maddening game for the dilettante and a genuine experience for the mathematician who has some ideas. One cannot know until in the game.


[new] I am the original poster (none / 0) (#3)
by jukis on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 01:53:46 AM PDT

This is the OP. But many phd applicants have been so successful in their undergard progs that they DO NOT REALIZE how different a phd prog can be, unless this is *explicitely* communicated to them. Besides, some applicants take time off after undergrad before they consider enrolling in a phd prog(for them to seek help from their mentors). Obviously, it wouldn't hurt for phd deps to put this on WWW; just state that success in undergrad is no reliable indicator of success in phd. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a chance to visit schools; many have only limited opportunities to interact with ppl face to face. It only takes for the deps to post some pretty basic info on their WWWs that says more about their prog structure, stats etc. It's an info technology era; if applications are submitted on-line, why not use this medium for such purposes as well?! For some, the only/primary source of info is WWW, there are many int'l students in math phd progs. I mean if you go to the WWWs and seek out pertinent info it's still an effort on the part of a student, isn't it?! I don't dispute that it is a student's responsibility to find out; however deps can be a little more forthcoming and helpful, in making the info readily available....this is a book we'll use extensively, it's your bible, you gotta know it from cover to cover; be prepared, read this book in advance, becuase once you are here you will not have time to start it from null because your gonna be showered with problem sets and proof construction problem techniques so be ready...then...our attrition rate stands at X percent, only half of the students will remain for the second year, so be advised that many students will not complete the program and that on top of dropout rates at a later time... Just put it up on deps WWW, make it readily available. Why make abig secreat of it? Here is a trick: considering the amount and the level of difficulty of theory obviously it takes time to read and understand theory; this stuff is not pipedin piecemeal step by step but in large portions...and that's fine...if you dedicate enough time it's doable...but then comes another stage--application of theory...for that to materialize you must know the theory well in the first place, right. Some students are very passionate about studying the models, dedicate plenty of time..and then boom....what they see on exams/prelims its all some drills and problems, devoid of the need to demonstrate much of the theoretical underpinnings that they were anxious to master...And the trick is, you lose confidence AND a motivation to dedicate so much time to mastering theory; not because you no longer wish to do so, but because you suddenly realize that its all problem sets that matter, not your mastery of theory...so many hours put into learning theory all of a sudden seems wasted; and that happens because the prog is designed in such and such a way and you didn't know what to expect. What are the grounds for forcing a student out?! You know phd prog involves a long time committment (and this fact is well advertised, no qualms); if you are not willing to commit that much time or you lose interest in the subject matter or your not working hard enough or obviously lack the intellectual capacity then you leave. Simple as that.



[new] barmy (none / 0) (#4)
by vizioneer on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 08:31:10 AM PDT

Why make a big secret is because they have everything to gain by taking in a larger pool of students whom they know half will fall out and then they're left with the survivors who can do research for them and teach courses. If I were setting up a team of workers to perform some projects and I had a good idea that most met the qualifications but yet knew that nonetheless half would drop out, then of course I would form a buffer zone knowing this, of course it's great if all are successful. Besides, as we know, most grad students have a belief that they will not be among the ones who drop out. Bottomline though, grad school in the US take themselves way too seriously and take way too much time. I like e.g. England's approach to grad school- 3 years of workshops and research. I'm amazed that the US still is able to find so many grad students and pump out so many PhD's.


[new] would you be posted ha (none / 0) (#6)
by jukis on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 10:45:59 AM PDT

vizioneer But the fact is many first year students have no TA/RA responsibilities, most of them are on fellowships (I mean who would enrol in a phd prog paying tuition...). Besides I don't see how a greatly confused 1st year student will be able to TA/RA, so I don't see how this is a zero-sum game; I rather think this outcome is a mutual loss; one year wasted for a student and wasted resources for a dep. I do agree however that doc deps take themselves too seriously, that partly has to do with academic culture being resistent to change; but it also has to do with the fact that academic positions are so scarce (babyboomers etc.) that many phd students just have to extend their enrolment in the program endlessly because of limited job prospects upon exit from programs; departmental culture also cultivates this. British doctoral system is less rigid indeed and provides greater room for creativity, even though they are not as generous with funding a student.



[new] 4+7=too long (none / 0) (#7)
by vizioneer on Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 01:32:48 PM PDT

It sounds like post-secondary schooling is either cheap or nearly free over in England. It might also be harder to even get into a program as a result? I haven't looked too seriously at it, but a cousin of mine is interested in Oxford for his doctorate. I also didn't know that grad students like to extend their stays at PhD programs due to the job market, but I've obviously heard of postdocs doing so until being able to get on a tenure track. I really think the PhD program should get on with it already- some programs don't transfer coursework at all, they all have these highly involved prelims that cost a lot of time, etc. etc.. I know, people will counter that it's important etc., but why does England graduate them in 3 years? And they're so good, they can come all the way over here and land tenure track jobs. No doubt the US university system has become bloated with many ivory towers wanting a fraction of the tuition money for the 4 year's of undergrad education. I also hear that, e.g., Germany's undergrad education is more specific to a student's major and that it's a bit like getting a master's. I'll say it again- 6-7 years in addition to the 4 years of undergrad is silly and missing the point, and I'm sure the creativity and individuality is sometimes squandered during the more creative years.


[new] I know of some reputable Universities (none / 0) (#8)
by nigelvrm on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 09:11:52 AM PDT

I know of some reputable Universities that take 2 years to complete a Phd. And the attrition rate is indeed high. Sometimes reaching 50% per sem. This may or may not be a problem with some people, and I find it weird that universities in America take twice as long as vizioneer pointed out. Is it it because of the money? Or the quality of education? Quantity over quality is it?



PhD applicants continue to be misinformed | 9 comments (9 topical, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:
Menu
create account
FAQ
Search
Recent Comments

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Related Links
Also by Anonymous Hero

SourceForge Logo Powered by Scoop
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest

create account | faq | search