A PhD or Masters in a maths-heavy area (most likely statistics). A few questions for those wiser then I!

greenliner wrote:

BUt withopnly a master's degree, it will be far harder to get hired.

The other field where this will help is finance, become a quant. Hedge funds hire top stats folk and math folk to do financial modeling. Truly high money there.

Regarding the first point, that only applies to average mathematicians. A superstar obviously won't need a PhD. A PhD only shows that you can follow an established process that's fairly unchanged. Most people who start a PhD and dropout don't do it because they're academically incapable. They just get tired of the routine involved just as some obviously bright kids dropout of college because they want to use their time more productively than staying in school.

You can basically master the processes of a PhD without wasting your time doing the actual PhD coursework. That's the point I'm driving at. If you partake in ANY long term research effort, including for personal projects, you're essentially doing PhD work.

You can be a great researcher without following the regimen that it takes to produce your PhD work. That's just tiresome for a lot of people, from doing surveys, interviews, etc to writing a dissertation that may or may not even be used after you graduate. Unless your dissertation is in exactly the area that what you want to work in upon completion, then it's not worth it.

My final assessment is that you shouldn't pursue a PhD. You don't seem to be passionate enough if you're this indecisive. If you are just wondering if you need to check something off, then it's definitely not worth it. A PhD is worthwhile when you have a real area you're passionate about researching. And the level of indecision you have tells me that you don't have that.

Given the time investment of a PhD program, I wouldn't go into one if I was indecisive and only wondering if I should get it just to cross it off a list to pass the HR filter.

If you can't articulate what your exact passion is about math and statistics and articulate a pressing problem you want to solve, don't do the PhD. My final recommendation.

Yes. If you want to lead projects, develop applied methodology, or do actual statistics, strongly consider the PhD. The PhD will open research-oriented jobs that the Master's may not. Research does not necessarily mean academia. You can certainly do this with a Master's, but you're less likely to be given the opportunity and more likely to work as an analyst or as support for the PhDs. This might be something that interests you, as you might work more closely with data and the nitty gritty details.

Probably depends on the industry of interest. They may be different doors. Statistics has the potential to be a bit more "general" than the other ones you mentioned, which may mean it opens more doors. On the other hand, the right Operational Research PhD is likely to involve at least some background in statistics that you can leverage to get your foot in the door for some of the statistics jobs.

Yes. An undergraduate degree will prevent you from advancing unless you can find your way into management. No one really cares that you won a prize in Number Theory as an undergraduate. Some don't care about anything at all that you did as an undergraduate. A PhD does not guarantee advancement, but it is much more likely . A Master's will hold you back from certain areas where the credential (and requisite background) provided by the PhD is generally required, but given enough experience you can also make your way into those areas eventually. You are much less likely to get there with only an undergraduate degree.

That's up to you. If you aren't sold on research, a research-oriented Master's degree might help you decide whether you would like to pursue a PhD without the time investment of a PhD. A taught masters can be good for a terminal degree because it gives you broader knowledge/background when applying for jobs. It also means you could step into a PhD with enough background to jump right into research. In North America, my understanding is it usually means you're not going to get into a PhD in Statistics.

If money is important, you might find a better return on your investment if you get a Master's and start working rather than putting in the extra 3 years to get a PhD. On the other hand, those extra 3 years may balance out within 5-10 years, depending on the salary you can pull in after you finish. The value of the knowledge and experience of the PhD is something only you (and human resources managers who don't have any idea of what is needed for the job) can evaluate.

This is a good quora post. Your research may be original but it doesn't mean it will be useful. I wouldn't waste my time in a Phd if I was just trying to check something off a list.

The work you do for a company will have a direct tangible impact right away. and you'll be making money.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-having-a-PhD-mean

You're correct that I am indecisive at this stage, and I note your recommendation. I'll take it into account, as you seem experienced.

I will state that I was persuing an alternative career path until very recently, it was only a short while ago I began exploring these options. So I feel that I will become far more decisive very quickly - historically, I have never had an issue with making big decisions. I am currently in a situation where I am discovering a great deal of fantastic-looking options after a short amount of time researching intensively, and so am seeking out opinions from those with experience in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. I personally don't see that as extreme indecisiveness, although I can certainly see how it comes across. If I'm still in this position in a month, then yes, that would be an entirely justified conclusion.

My goal is to decide on the masters vs phd vs immediate job route in the next 2 days or so, then spend the rest of November making applications to appealing programmes relevant to whichever of these paths I end up going down. This thread is helping a great deal to that end.

Thank you for the quora link. I appreciate all your help on this thread - I was convinced nobody would reply to this!

Umm, it really depends on the organization for the company you're working at. That's the thing that few people talk about when it comes to saying you need this or that degree to advance. I've seen people move into Director of Technology positions with no advanced degree but I'm only looking at 2 particular companies. If you have a track record of leadership and technical acumen, the managers and directors and executives know who you are and are more likely to promote you within the company based on what you've PROVEN THAT YOU CAN DO IN THE FIELD, not based on what degree you have attached to your name, And when we talk about C-level positions, having a PhD is not a shoe-in for one of those either. C-level position promotion have more to do with who you know and what you've shown that you can do in the industry than what degree you have. But all of this ultimately is dependent upon the company. If you get an advanced degree and join a startup of 5 people who are just looking for an "expert" at this or that, they may hire you right out of college and say you're the VP of Technology of technology director. But that's only going to happen for super small companies like startups. At google, the best you can hope for straight out of college with an advanced degree is being a member of an internal Resarch and Development team. And then, working your way up into becoming director/manager of your group, overseeing a bunch of other PhD's.

MSc Statistics wrote:

Yes. An undergraduate degree will prevent you from advancing unless you can find your way into management. No one really cares that you won a prize in Number Theory as an undergraduate. Some don't care about anything at all that you did as an undergraduate. A PhD does not guarantee advancement, but it is much more likely . A Master's will hold you back from certain areas where the credential (and requisite background) provided by the PhD is generally required, but given enough experience you can also make your way into those areas eventually.

greenliner wrote:

My preference, since I work with them, is to get your Phd and specialize in biostatistics. There is a ton of work out there in complex clinical trials, and you can make a very fine living doing that work. BUt withopnly a master's degree, it will be far harder to get hired.

The other field where this will help is finance, become a quant. Hedge funds hire top stats folk and math folk to do financial modeling. Truly high money there.

I am literally defending my dissertation in 2 weeks in biostats. I chose a job as an academic researcher, but interviewed for industry and government jobs as well. I have a background in econ and accounting as well, so I also considered going back to those areas and had a couple of interviews in those areas, but I find the health work more suitable for personal reasons. I think if you do biostats, you will have a lot of options no matter what you choose and given the interaction with researchers you will have to interact with, you learn how to work with people who have little to no quantitative knowledge. This is attractive to companies as they want their quant people to be problem solvers and work well with others. Good luck no matter what you choose.

norma jean wrote:

The word 'maths' irks me to no end. Please desist with usage of that moronic word.

Thanks

What about the word 'stats', is that also moronic?

Or is it just maths that you cannot say properly?

I completely agree. It depends on the company, the country, and the type of position, and also the person's goals and interests, I guess. That's something the OP has to figure out personally. If they want to advance as a statistician in particular, the PhD is likely the most reliable option. If they want to advance into management, C-level positions, and so on, having the undergraduate background might be all that's necessary if they can prove ability. Proven ability, or an MBA, or some other proof that you can guide business practices, will likely go further if they don't plan to work directly as a statistician.

norma jean wrote:

The word 'maths' irks me to no end. Please desist with usage of that moronic word.

Thanks

Maths is the proper word in much of the world.

1. Whatever you do get some serious programming experience as well (Python still will work) - a good insurance policy because the job market in tech outside of academia is so heavily skewed to "big data" these days. (Not that "big data" is a well-defined scientific discipline, but a lot of people seem to think it is)

2. PhD is not like masters in that it totally depends on your relationship with your faculty adviser. Check with his other students. Talk to him about his ongoing research and how you can participate. It's much easier if you can write your dissertation piggybacking on your adviser's research. Also, make sure you can get financial support all the way through. There is absolutely no guarantee you will be able to complete a PhD - many candidates fall short. So pick the program with care, and make sure all of your questions are answered ahead of time. Finally, the job market in academia is saturated (except for low salary rent-a-teachers), so be prepared to go for a job in the real world unless you plan on being a superstar. Masters vs. PhD is a tough call. PhD is much harder with a bigger investment of time. But if you stop with the masters and go into the job market, you probably will never go back to get the doctorate. I think most doctorate programs will give a masters en route in about the same time span as going for the masters alone, its just a bit harder to get a masters that way. Only go for the PhD if you have real passion for the field of study.

3. There are plenty of jobs for BS's in tech these days - many of them depend on having good programming skills as well as math smarts. But an advanced degree gives more job security in that world, and a higher probability of promotion.

4. Block chain technology is really applied cryptography, might be a good place to look for a non-PhD with expertise in that area.

5. Outside of academia employers won't strongly differentiate between game theory, OR, etc. Employment interview goal will be to ferret out how smart you really are, but it never hurts to be able to overawe them with an advanced degree in a maths-related field. You may be able to make them think your stats experience will make you invaluable at doing "big data", whatever that is.

There is a lot of truth to this: "My final assessment is that you shouldn't pursue a PhD. You don't seem to be passionate enough if you're this indecisive. If you are just wondering if you need to check something off, then it's definitely not worth it. A PhD is worthwhile when you have a real area you're passionate about researching. And the level of indecision you have tells me that you don't have that."

One thing I know for sure, do not do a PHD if you are not driven to answer some tough questions. It will just take over your life. I am lucky; I have a clinical doctorate and 2 master's degrees and all that together was easier than seeing my kids and colleagues complete a single PhD program.

British twits started making maths popular in the 1970s.

I don't know why the op didn't double major in something useful like engineering. Math is a tool used in practical applications. Majoring in only math is like saying I majored in table saw. If you think maths is correct then would the analogy be table saws?

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2018/09/math-or-maths/

Hi

PhD in Stats currently working in clinical trials.

First get the PhD if you are passionate about learning and enjoy research. Don’t get a PhD to check the box to make yourself more marketable.

Second, PhD in Stats will open a lot of opportunities not only in medical area but also Data Sciences.

It is MATH not MATHS.

Words that end in an A are not pronounced as if they end in R. Words that end in R are not pronounced as if they end in A. Is that really so difficult to understand?

A PhD in statistics might be useful at an insurance company. A PhD in applied math will get you a job on Wall Street or industry.

Hanner_Englandah wrote:

It is MATH not MATHS.

Words that end in an A are not pronounced as if they end in R. Words that end in R are not pronounced as if they end in A. Is that really so difficult to understand?

What have those pronunciations have to do with it?

It is Maths in the overwhelming majority of world

Hi - my undergrad was "Mathematics and Statistics". We don't have majors/minors in the UK (at least, almost nowhere does), but this would (I believe) be equivalent to a double major in maths and stats in the US.

Unless you were making a remark that some employers see maths and stats as the same discipline?

I am Sam wrote:

Hanner_Englandah wrote:

It is MATH not MATHS.

Words that end in an A are not pronounced as if they end in R. Words that end in R are not pronounced as if they end in A. Is that really so difficult to understand?

What have those pronunciations have to do with it?

It is Maths in the overwhelming majority of world

Those pronunciations show that brits are incapable of determining the correct use of the language.

It is math in the 30 square miles of Silicon Valley where the vast majority of the world's useful math is done. The brits can't pronounce it correctly and they can't produce anything worthwhile. If brits want to get out of their third world hellhole, they need to at least learn how to pronounce words correctly.