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

I'm not sure I would call it a double major. A double major is nearly completely two different programs. Your degree is probably more similar to a math major with a concentration in stats or a minor in stats. From my knowledge, the UK doesn't have well-defined undergraduate programs/departments.

Sorry, I meant to say well-definined undergraduate statistics programs/departments.

I don't have a PhD in any of the specific subjects you are considering and my experience is in the US not the UK but since you are asking on a running message board, I'll answer too. Reading what other posters have said, it does seem like there are certain jobs that a math or related PhD will make possible, however, I'd say that generally PhD programs are primarily a pipeline for creating new professors as such are primarily about research. You don't mention wanting to be a professor. How about research? Did you do math research as an undergrad? If so, did you like it? Were you good at it? Do you see yourself continuing to research the topic you researched as an undergrad? These are important questions because you are going to spend most of your effort in a PhD program doing original research.

Look, it's not crime to enter a PhD program without a dissertation topic in mind. Few undergraduates have enough depth of experience to go into a PhD program knowing exactly what they are going to write their PhD about because there is a lot of math that has to be learned before you reach the cutting edge. That said, you seem to be casting your net pretty wide and I'm worried you don't know what you'd be getting yourself into with a PhD program. Typically in a PhD program you'll spend your time taking classes, teaching and doing original research. Classes are classes: the material will be harder and presented faster than in undergrad but this part will be familiar. You'll likely be supported by teaching. The pay is low and the hours are long and you'll regret every hour your aren't doing research. That leaves research, the biggest part of the PhD, the part that will make or break your PhD. You'll spend years studying some narrow topic with the hope of proving something interesting about it. That is a difficult thing to do if you aren't passionate about the topic and if you are passionate, why don't you want to be a professor?

So what's my advice after all of this? I'd think very hard about what specific jobs you might want and start talking to hiring people at those companies about what qualifications you need to get a first job, to advance etc. It may turn out that your bachelor's is enough. If not, get a masters with a specific job title in mind. As you study during the masters, maybe you'll get hooked on a topic and decide that you want to pursue a PhD so that you can do original research in that topic but I won't just apply to blindly to PhD programs.

Yeah a PhD is only for the nerdiest of the nerd unless you're just a masochist. On the positive side though, you will usually be able to get the funds needed to support your research so one other benefit is the ability to learn how to manage large funds for projects. That could come in handy in an organization if you want to secure funds to carry out research. Venture capitalist funds, etc.

3hr-marathoner wrote:That leaves research, the biggest part of the PhD, the part that will make or break your PhD. You'll spend years studying some narrow topic with the hope of proving something interesting about it. That is a difficult thing to do if you aren't passionate about the topic and if you are passionate, why don't you want to be a professor?

Quick note regarding some of the people who are so down on the PhD idea: this guy is in Britain, which means you can do a Ph.D. in (nominally) three years. No comps, no course work, just do some research and write it up. In many ways, it's the equivalent of a longer-than-usual masters in the U.S. That's a disadvantage if you want to continue in academia, since it means you spend more years as a post-doc. But if you're planning to leave academia anyway, it's an advantage. You get the credential, but it's not the crushing experience a U.S. Ph.D. can be.

(Source: I'm from North America, did a hard sciences Ph.D. in Britain without any serious intentions of remaining in academia, then moved on afterwards. While I wouldn't recommend doing a Ph.D. just to get the letters after your name, it's not a bad way of spending a few years if you're still trying to figure out exactly what you want to do, and it may keep some unexpected doors open down the road. That said, if you end up figuring what you really want to do in life, and can get an entry-level position starting you down that road, by all means skip the Ph.D. and take that route.)

Is this generally accurate? I've heard that you tend to be looking at a 4-year commitment, unless you're a superstar - but you are obviously the person who did it, so you will know more.

El Physico wrote:

Quick note regarding some of the people who are so down on the PhD idea...

Just wanted to clarify that I'm not at all against the OP pursuing a PhD if he's excited about doing research but if he's viewing it as a credential to add in order to land some hypothetical future job, I'd caution against it. Of course the two aren't mutually exclusive. A person may love math for it's own sake but still think that non academic employment requiring a PhD down the road is a better fit.

The answer, at the moment, is somewhere in between.

My favourite module in my final year was my group research project into regression models, and their uses in medical statistics. I did well in it, am better at this type of thing than exams, and am excited about the prospect of doing further research. However, if I was to devote 4 years to such a venture, I would like to be confident it would open a number of employment opportunities up for me, to a greater extent than just a Masters. If it would not be any more beneficial than a Masters, then although I'd enjoy my time researching, I couldn't justify the opportunity cost of spending 3 extra years achieving the same career boosts as I could have in one year.

wish you good luck with whatever you choose.

If you want to go into industry, I doubt the PhD means as much as your class background. Do well in right classes and you can make a lot of money on Wall Street and elsewhere.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/careers/jobs/quants/

It really depends what you want to do. I do computational genetics research and a PhD is required for my job. If you don't want to do research there are still some jobs where a PhD is required or even preferred, but it really depends what you want to do (and the level of independence you'd prefer in your work).

2 quick questions:

1: Does anybody have any experience with the University of Toronto? Considering applying for a direct-entry stats PhD there, and the deadline is in 3 days (saw it yesterday).

2: My grades are all from the UK, so a 70% or above is a GOOD grade here, it's an A. I have almost all of my final year grades 70 or above. I gather that, in Canada, a 70 is trash. Is it worth adding an addendum to my CV stating the UK grading rubric, or to place the letter grade beside my percentages, when applying to North American institutions?

HM guy wrote:

2 quick questions:

1: Does anybody have any experience with the University of Toronto? Considering applying for a direct-entry stats PhD there, and the deadline is in 3 days (saw it yesterday).

2: My grades are all from the UK, so a 70% or above is a GOOD grade here, it's an A. I have almost all of my final year grades 70 or above. I gather that, in Canada, a 70 is trash. Is it worth adding an addendum to my CV stating the UK grading rubric, or to place the letter grade beside my percentages, when applying to North American institutions?

It really seems like you're looking at this from the perspective of ticking a requirement box for a job you want. Get a Master's degree instead, that's what those are for.

Also, good luck meeting a 3 day deadline. Do they not require test scores, LOR, etc?

Everything they require, I have in place - I got all my documentation together preemptively, in case of situations such as this.

I believe you can leave after the first year of a direct-entry program with a masters, although I'm still trying to ascertain this. Of course, were I to apply for this and be accepted, that would not be my goal!

I just sat a full practice GRE exam, given by the GRE website (sitting the real thing on Tuesday).

Scores were 168 verbal, 164 quant.

Over the moon with verbal.

Is the quant good enough to contend in very good North American PhD programmes? Looking at applying to Princeton, CalTech, Yale at the moment, still looking for a final school that would be a little less of a reach.

The good news is that the quant would have been much higher if it wasn't for time constraints - I knew how to do all the questions, but didn't have time to answer them all. That is reassuring, as that should be fixed with some repeat drilling. But how are these scores as a benchmark?

HM guy wrote:

2: My grades are all from the UK, so a 70% or above is a GOOD grade here, it's an A. I have almost all of my final year grades 70 or above. I gather that, in Canada, a 70 is trash. Is it worth adding an addendum to my CV stating the UK grading rubric, or to place the letter grade beside my percentages, when applying to North American institutions?

70 is a C minus minus in the first world. It makes sense that it is an A in the third world UK. C minus minus is almost getting down to rojo range. England does seem to produce some good mathematicians. John Conway and Andrew Wiles were my professors. Conway was insanely brilliant. I think that Conway is emeritus at Princeton, and maybe can give you a brit insider recommendation. I'm pretty sure that Wiles is now at Oxford, but maybe could do the same for you.

If you call it "maths" here, people will think that you are very strange or unintelligent.

Also, it is incorrect to say that you are going "to hospital," going "to uni."

"The other team are winning," is not correct, team is singular.

"I might do" is incorrect, the correct usage is "I might."

"They needn't come to school today" is not correct. The correct usage is "they don't need to come to school today."

"At the weekend" is not correct. Use "on the weekend."

"He must have done" sounds ridiculous. Say "he must have."

But the good news is, no matter how silly your britishisms are, you will always have better grammar than the brojos.

HM guy wrote:

I just sat a full practice GRE exam, given by the GRE website (sitting the real thing on Tuesday).

Scores were 168 verbal, 164 quant.

Over the moon with verbal.

Is the quant good enough to contend in very good North American PhD programmes? Looking at applying to Princeton, CalTech, Yale at the moment, still looking for a final school that would be a little less of a reach.

The good news is that the quant would have been much higher if it wasn't for time constraints - I knew how to do all the questions, but didn't have time to answer them all. That is reassuring, as that should be fixed with some repeat drilling. But how are these scores as a benchmark?

These are fine scores on the general exam. However, why aren't you simply writing the graduate coordinator at any school you want to potentially attend? They will give you a better idea about what is expected. Also, most schools post limiting ranges for the general, but more importantly provide information on the subject area test for math. If you do statistics, then the general GRE is fine. If you plan on doing mathematics, you will need to take the subject area exam as it is more indicative of your specific math ability as it pertains to graduate level math. It also only pits you against people planning on going to grad school in math. So you will get a better sense of how your aptitude ranks in a math test against other actual mathematicians who plan on going to graduate school.

HM guy wrote:

I just sat a full practice GRE exam, given by the GRE website (sitting the real thing on Tuesday).

Scores were 168 verbal, 164 quant.

Over the moon with verbal.

Is the quant good enough to contend in very good North American PhD programmes? Looking at applying to Princeton, CalTech, Yale at the moment, still looking for a final school that would be a little less of a reach.

The good news is that the quant would have been much higher if it wasn't for time constraints - I knew how to do all the questions, but didn't have time to answer them all. That is reassuring, as that should be fixed with some repeat drilling. But how are these scores as a benchmark?

Retake the quant. Practice time management. Even if you have to skip some.

For top maths programmes, you need 170 and sometimes a subject test score that is respectable.