University/Grad school usefulness
 

I learned more relevant stuff in grad school than I did in undergrad, because I didn't have to take any more ridiculous gen-eds.

I think for a physics PhD at UMD you are required to take like ~4 classes and pass a couple of tests.

The real point of a PhD is to have a mentor/advisor and be trained in how to do research, preferably to the point where you can begin to initiate yourself (although a lot of PhDs aren't good at this).

The skills involved have nothing to do with how well you are at classes or what your IQ is. It is a much better measurement of your future success... by putting you in a 1-1 relationship with a mentor/advisor and asking you to produce.

JM
(I and most UMD students take far more than 4 classes. I think I took 15 or something, and I would have taken far more if I hadn't had problems. The classes that I did take, even the ones I was serious about, were not of great importance.)

By the way, experience wise a masters is worth 2 years experience and a PhD is worth 5 years experience.

Where a PhD really shines it is opens doors for you. There are a number of jobs which you won't even be considered without a PhD. And others where you will barely be considered without a PhD.

JM
(I took 7.5 years on my PhD.)

How many PHDs go into research? Do you think most of what you learned in your PHD program will help you in the job you eventually end up with. If you are going to be a researcher, I would assume it would be very helpful.

I know 4 physics PhDs doing defence consulting work

Intel would only hire a specific type of physics PhD (experimental hard condensed matter?)

Yeah, the 90k was defense related.

JM

I have a nuclear physics friend who intends to work there.

I expect that experimental condensed matter (silicon/wafers/etc) are the ones who get paid 100k right out of graduate school.

JM

Yeah, I was going to talk to Booz Allen, and then I realized that the only physicists they hire are on defence work, and I don't qualify...

For my new job I'd say that about half of what I learned in undergrad + grad school will prove useful.

All the calculus, DEQs, linear algebra, real+complex analysis, statistical stuff, numerical stuff and programming will prove usable to one degree or another. Other stuff less so.

While it isn't a direct item of knowledge, I expect your ability to produce/etc is some of the reason why you were hired.

No amount of classes would show this.

JM

This is usually the case for any reasonably serious degree, is it not?

A huge chunk of engineers never do any engineering once they've graduated as well.

Yeah, I get that.

Was just pointing out that for many degrees, they don't care what classes you took so much as what type of degree you have (which I suppose makes the classes implicit). They're buying people with the capacity for analytical thought more often than not, and the degrees just show that to varying levels.

To be honest I would probably have an easier time doing a PhD than coursework. If I'm not interested in something I have to really struggle to pay any attention to it at all.

Focused research into a field of interest, even if it's in excruciating detail over a long period of time, would serve me better than taking endless mindless classes of things I can't be bothered to study 'cause I hate them...

Mind you, the ability to wing stuff and make **** up and figure it out as I go along is easily the #1 skill I got from undergrad. http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

Fact: Gay men have higher incomes than straights on average.

I don't see why gays wouldn't make more than straights, on average. The breeders have issues that employers don't have to worry about with the majority of gays.

I was very careful to avoid saying I thought it was false. I just doubt that the evidence he has actually supports his conclusion.

They are related.

JM

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...4/ai_17599602/

Two large national surveys, which break down respondents into "gays" and "straights," have been published. In 1986, The San Francisco Examiner, by random digit dialing, obtained a national sample of 400 gay men and lesbians. In 1992, The New York Times, in an exit poll of presidential voters, asked whether respondents were gay or bisexual. The Examiner survey found that gay men had a median income of $29,129 whereas non-gay male household heads had an income of $24,550. The New York Times survey, on the other hand, appears to show gays with lower incomes (Cronin, 1993). The New York Times comparison is misleading, however, because it uses "family income" although only a handful of gay men are married. If we make the reasonable assumption that "family income" and "personal income" are the same for most gay men, we can use census data to make a more valid comparison. This shows that gay men are more likely to have higher incomes than are heterosexual men.