Is it useful/realistic to do more than one PhDs?

Graduate School
21

<p>
[quote]
sakky- that's what GOOD professors tell their students when those students ask for advice about graduate schools and LORs. They want to be able to say honestly that you can do the PhD work and not disappoint their friends in that graduate program. I've heard this from 4 or 5 different professors alone.</p>

<p>Otherwise.... what's the point of wasting everyone's time, including your own, in applying for the PhD?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't know that it's necessarily a waste of time. I would say that plenty of people want to get PhD's in order to learn the tools of research and to investigate a particular topic that they really want to know the answer, but without necessarily wanting to enter academia. </p>

<p>I think this occurs quite often in the sciences and engineering. For example, I know a woman who, as a teenager, had her mother die of a particular disease, and so she decided to get a PhD at Berkeley to investigate and try to cure that disease. Now she works for a biotech firm that is working on a cure for that disease. She doesn't care about becoming an academic, and I don't think she ever did. She just wants to find a cure for the disease that claimed her mother. </p>

<p>Similarly, I recently attended a talk given by a guy who is getting his PhD at MIT, where his project consists of designing better medical prostheses. Why did he choose to do that? His father had lost his leg in war. Hence, I don't think this guy really cares that much about being an academic. I'm quite certain that if he never got an academic placement offer at any school - not even at a community college - but he was able to build a high quality prostheses so that his father could walk again, I suspect he would gladly take that trade.</p>

22

<p>I'm also considering pursuing additional education after graduate school. However, my case is somewhat different.</p>

<p>It would be something along the lines of:
(1) Major in Economics or Business at a top 5 school
(2) Work for 2-5 years
(3) Go for an M.B.A. and/or J.D. at a top 5 school
(4) Work for maybe a decade or two, accumulating a large amount of capital (> $1 million) (live well but frugally)
(5) Go back to school and get PhDs in Economics, History, and Philosophy
(6) Resume a career</p>

<p>Is this too unrealistic?</p>

<p>The reason I would pursue such education is simply a desire to become a scholar, being well-educated, personal edification, etc. The plan would be to become rich enough (from being a top lawyer or businessman) to use the money for the extra degrees.</p>

<p>I do NOT want to go into academia or do formal academic research. The closest I would be willing to go would be as an adjunct professor who teaches one class per term while having a career.</p>

<p>After such an education, I would probably want to go into public service, or resume a law career with a goal of being appointed to a supreme court position.</p>

<p>I guess the timeline would be something like: graduate at 22, work until 25, grad school until 29 (joint MBA/JD), work until 45 building a lucrative career and starting a family, pursue PhDs from 45 to 56, resume a career in law or enter public service or start a business.</p>

<p>Is it possible to just get Master's degree in these subjects? A lot of top graduate schools don't offer simply a Master's degree, they make you pursue a PhD.</p>

<p>Do prestigious universities allow professionals to seek additional degrees if they are willing to pay for it? Am I destined to seek this education on my own? I would certainly do so if it were my only option, but it is always nice to receive formal recognition for the effort.</p>

<p>Also, I hear that some people simply do not finish the PhD program and take the Master's degree. Wouldn't this affect the chances of seeking another degree from another insititution?</p>

23

<p>sp2008,</p>

<p>I am truly flabbergasted by your post. Have you even been admitted to college? "(1) Major in Economics or Business at a top 5 school" makes me think you haven't. Get into college first, worry about grad school second. But I'll play the game. </p>

<p><a href="2">quote</a> Work for 2-5 years
(3) Go for an M.B.A. and/or J.D. at a top 5 school
(4) Work for maybe a decade or two, accumulating a large amount of capital (> $1 million) (live well but frugally)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>All depends on the college you go to and how you do there. BTW, you'll need a lot more than one million to be considered as holding "a large amount of capital" in my book.</p>

<p><a href="5">quote</a> Go back to school and get PhDs in Economics, History, and Philosophy

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This goal is just obnoxious. Do you even know about these subjects? People in economics hate philosophy and people in history love to stand back and observe the bickering. This goal of yours is completely undesirable for the professors who will be supervising you, which will hopefully keep you from draining your institution of funds which could be going to a more serious student who DOES desire to go into academia. Simply put, you have no business in any of your desired PhD programs if you cannot commit to one - and then of course, a small subarea is what will actually demand your allegiance. It is completely unrealistics for you to pursue PhDs in these three areas for 11 years - you need at least 15, probably more like 18-20.</p>

<p>
[quote]
goal of being appointed to a supreme court position.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>HAHAHAHAHA. You are a joke, sorry. If you want to be a supreme court justice, you should be in the courts and not in the ivory tower. Connections in the political realm, which won't come from getting three PhDs, also help.</p>

24

<p>Im worried you'll be older than your professors by the time you start your third, maybe even second Ph.D.</p>

<p>And yea, like Dobby i hope you were joking.</p>

25

<p>I was simply thinking about possibilities. I'm sorry I came off as obnoxious. But if I may add, your posts are equally -if not more- obnoxious. Sorry for wanting advice. My purpose was to learn more about the nature of PhDs and now I have. But whatever, I appreciate your kind wisdom. I guess I'll settle for more... independent learning. Why? Because I love to learn "for the sake of learning" as you so kindly stated.</p>

<p>Why do people in economics hate people in philosophy? While I'm not completely ignorant of the subjects as I have studied both, you could say I don't have the institutional experience that you must have.</p>

26

<p>Well I applaud you for your desire to do some pretty tough work to learn....but doing 3 PhDs (that is - three dissertations) is just nonsensical. Let me try to explain why that is so. The PhD is meant as a stepping-stone for a career in research (academia). You have explictly stated that you do not want to do that. Well guess what - if you don't want it, no potential PhD advisor will want you!</p>

<p>Another thing you've gotta realize is that while you might think that spending all that time getting the most advanced degrees in the academy translates into "personal edification" that, IMHO, is too idealized a view. What actually happens in grad school is that your soul gets run over by a bulldozer in the first year or two, leading you to have a very inimical view of universities and your fellow grad students, and thereafter you somehow manage to chronically claw your way out of the death ditch in order to detract from others and hide your own deficiencies. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Why do people in economics hate people in philosophy?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well I'm overgeneralizing like the dickens (note that Adam Smith might be described by many as an economic philosopher with a gift for history), but rest assured - modern-day people in different areas of knowledge are always arguing among themselves as to which areas' research actually constitutes the expansion of knowledge. I can't speak to econ/hist/phil directly because not one of them is my area of expertise but people in my area, AB, are constantly being attacked by people in area CB because they think C is more relevant to B than A is. It can get pretty childish and trust me, you don't want to be stuck in the middle.</p>

27

<p>Thank you. I admit I was hasty in my thought to complete 3 PhDs. I realize now the importance of focusing on one career and excelling in it. I was just playing with ideas, and it turns out that it flopped. I'll probably take the business path. But what if, later in life, I want to complete a two-year master program in History or Philosophy? Is it simply a waste of time? I would imagine it might raise issues of career interruption without any immediate benefits that are applicable to the business environment. I guess my reasoning was that when I'm rich (yes I know... very presumptuous... it's more of "if I become rich") I would like to use that money to pursue less-than-lucrative passions when I have money to support myself. Of course, I can simply go over to the bookstore and pick up some books on various topics, or get textbooks. Sometimes it's nice to have a structured goal and formal recognition that is widely acknowledged, regardless of whether the knowledge applies to any particular situation.</p>

<p>and no, I don't equate $1 million to being rich. I was simply crudely estimating enough money to survive on while I would go to school. I would expect a rich 45 year-old to have at least a net worth of $10 million. Correct me if I'm wrong.</p>

28

<p>It seems like you value learning for its own sake, which is a good thing in my books.</p>

<p>I advice you to get rich, then get a PhD, don't go back to business, just keep reading and writing. If your ideas are good enough, eventually people in widely different fields will start to revere you as an academic god. You'll then be awarded honorary PhDs from universities across the world. (If you manage to do this you'll have come to the level of the greatest intellectuals of the twentieth century - and I'll be looking like a hindrance in the growth of a genius!)</p>

29

<p>Wow, I hope that post wasn't sarcastic (you never know online) but thank you. Now I just have to become rich haha.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
The PhD is meant as a stepping-stone for a career in research (academia). You have explictly stated that you do not want to do that. Well guess what - if you don't want it, no potential PhD advisor will want you!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I wouldn't go that far. There are indeed some professors who are perfectly happy to take new PhD students onboard even if they know they don't intend to become future academics. Granted, this seems to be most prevalent in the technical fields where many new PhD's will enter industry, and the profs know that. For example, at MIT, probably less than 25% of the newly minted engineering PhD students will actually take academic positions, despite the fact that MIT is clearly an elite engineering school (or because this is because MIT is an elite engineering school). Heck, even if we're talking about economics, it should be said that a significant fraction of new MIT econ PhD's will not take academic positions, but will instead go off to industry (or sometimes to do policy work for the government). </p>

<p>
[quote]
Well I'm overgeneralizing like the dickens (note that Adam Smith might be described by many as an economic philosopher with a gift for history)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As was Hayek. As was Simon. These guys were basically philosophers. Yet their ideas were accepted by the economics community enough to each be bestowed the Nobel Prize in Economics. </p>

<p>
[quote]
but rest assured - modern-day people in different areas of knowledge are always arguing among themselves as to which areas' research actually constitutes the expansion of knowledge. I can't speak to econ/hist/phil directly because not one of them is my area of expertise but people in my area, AB, are constantly being attacked by people in area CB because they think C is more relevant to B than A is. It can get pretty childish and trust me, you don't want to be stuck in the middle.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No doubt, it's a high risk strategy to be in the middle, because you will have to maintain credibility in both fields or else risk not being able to find a home in neither.</p>

<p>But it's also a high reward strategy. Those (admittedly few) people who are able to successfully blend 2 fields are able to reap extensive benefits, for many of the best innovations do indeed come from merging 2 fields. To take the example of economics, some of the most respected work in econ (i.e. Nobel Prize winning work) has been comprised largely of ideas that were seminally generated in other fields. From game theory which came from mathematics and produced a slew of Nobels (including the most recent winners), to statistics which was successfully merged into economics to form modern econometrics and thereby producing another set of Nobels, to history being blended with economics to form cliometrics (and Nobels to Fogel and North), to the ongoing incorporation of psychology to form behavioral and experimental economics (and another set of Nobels).</p>

31

<p>No sarcasm. Listen to sakky.</p>

32

<p>I had Professor who had his P.H.D in Computer Science and a MFA in Creative Writing, both of which are completely divergent. I think that real awesome that he can combine both interests. BTW one of my professors was telling me that some universities allow professors to audit classes and use the credits to alternate degrees. Is that true? Just curious.</p>

33

<p>Never heard of that, maybe it's true at certain places. But who really cares if it is true? Professors have egos and egos are not usually built up by taking classes from your colleagues. In fact, that's like saying "you deserve to be listened to way more than I do" - which is totally not the way to go about surviving and thriving in academia.</p>

34

<p>I think sp2008 expressed my own ambitions in the best possible way, thanks. :)</p>

35

<p>The problem with this discussion has been (with a few exceptions) too PhD centric. :)</p>

<p>As Sakky alluded to but did not emphasize, a lot of good research does not fit nicely into the definition of classical academic disciplines. For example, a few years ago, computational tools improved to the point that physical chemistry and quantum mechanics could be applied to biological problems. Did we see students getting a PhD in cell biology, immuno or whatever AND a PhD in physical chemistry? Of course not. Instead, we saw grad students in one department doing cross-disciplinary research in another department. </p>

<p>Or, look at how research careers evolve. How many researchers (be it academic or industry, science or humanities) are doing the same thing mid-career as early in one's career? Not all, and in some fast paced fields, very few. People are constantly re-inventing themselves. (and yes, professors DO sit in on classes taught by other professors. Not often, because there can be better ways, but it does happen.)</p>

<p>My point is that a PhD degree is less a measure of your knowledge than a marker that you've gained a set of skills that allow you to approach problems in a certain way. It provides a credential and a base. But what really matters is the knowledge and ability the PhD holder has. You don't need a 2nd PhD to confirm knowledge. </p>

<p>PS: What happens in real life? 1. In the sciences, people may do a post-doc in a different field, or more than one post-doc. 2. Academics may use a sabbatical year to explore a new field. 3. Academics receive grants to explore new areas. 4. In some areas, fellowship $ are available for professionals to pursue new areas. 5. Sometimes people reinvent themselves just by hard work on their own.</p>

36

<p>On the subject of professors sitting in on classes taught by other professors: I'm in a graduate seminar class on protein folding which has two professors sitting in on it. I'm sure that, especially with potentially interdisciplinary subjects, this is relatively common.</p>

37

<p>So be interested in both! Read the literature, pay your own way to go to the conferences, etc. But I fear that if you try to make a career out of both, you'll never be as good in either field as you could have been if you focused on one.</p>

38

<p>Yeah, I think what aldo003b says is what I fear...
however, if sp2008's plan would be more realistic, one could become wealthy enough to not care about a specific career and instead be a kind of explorer, networker, connector, between the different fields.</p>

39

<p>Hello everyone! Please help me with my situation:</p>

<p>I'm just about finished my M.A in Linguistics and I'm struggling to choose between two PhD programs...one is at the University of Texas. It's a PhD in Psychology with spec. in Bilingualism and Language Aquisition, and the other is a PhD in Linguistics at NYU... is it unrealistic to try and do both? I think I'll have a better chance of getting into the one at Texas and I'm incredibly interested by the program. I'm thinking with the research experience I will have gained I'll then be able to get into the NYU program. Is that a reasonable plan or should I just try for one?</p>

40

<p>It is absolutely insane to do two separate PhD programs. Just get the PhD (get the advisers who fit your research interests) and finish the dissertation. You can later explain to the hiring committee that although your degree is in X, you are also competent in Y.</p>