Seriously, do you need to have above average intelligence to get a Ph.D.?

ironside wrote:

Maybe your question is the wrong question. Of course those with PhD have higher IQ than general population. Question should be: who is smarter? Those with BA/BS who figured out how to make money with no further education or those with PhD?

It is amazing how this country sees making money as the only valid justification for any pursuit.

People have a whole host of motivations. For very smart people, intellectual curiosity is pretty high up there.

no no no no no definitely not

more than anything it takes a lot of drive and hardwork. people who are motivated enough to pursue it get to be really smart in their subject because they are really interested in it

it is painful but you have to keep working through it

the people who have the hardest time are the kids who were smart and could slack off.. because with a phd there are no tests, your value is based purely the work you can produce

moreover, as far as STEM fields go, and especially engineering, you would probably have a good chance of getting accepted anywhere with full funding to almost any school outside of the top 25, because they're hurting for americans

Pound sign real talk wrote:

I just finished my PhD in engineering and every student admitted to the program recieved 32k per year. I know bio, chem, physics students who got about 25k per year and a history student whose stipend was 18k.

Also my view could be skewed from engineering but what post docs pay 32k per year? Standard in my field is 60k for a post doc or if you get a job in industry after your PhD you will make ~100k. .

Salaries have gone up dramatically.

In the early 1990s, the normal salary for RA's and TA's was ~12k$ a year in engineering at a top-two department in that branch of engineering. If you were senior and good enough, e.g., to write grant proposals with a chance of getting your prof funded, you might make 14-15k$.

Post-docs were in the 18-24k$ range.

I knew salaried research faculty who were pulling down mid 40k$.

I'm glad the salaries have gone up, but I don't think that I would have ever left grad school if I were making 30k$ a year.

I haven't read through the thread, so I don't know what has been said already, but if you took an average, then of course PhD students are going to be smarter than the general population. The average college grad is smarter than the average person from the general population. However, anyone who thinks having a PhD means a person is brilliant is mistaken. I worked in academia for a short while, and I saw and worked with many people who were either PhD students or researchers with PhDs who were, in my opinion, not very smart at all, and this was in a hard science. It actually really turned me off on academia in general. I will say most tenured professors are quite bright as those positions are generally extremely competitive.

Honestly, after working in academia, I think most Americans who earn a PhD are likely not the brightest as there are much, much better routes to take. Foreigners use the PhD as a ticket into America, but for people who are already citizens, it makes much more sense to go to work in industry or education or something. If you don't believe me, here's a comparison:

My old coworker:

38 years old

Brilliant foreign dude with a PhD and 15 years of research experience.

Works 60hrs/week, makes $45k/year, and gets treated like garbage

Me:

27 years old

Bachelor's degrees only. No PhD. No MS.

Work 40-50hrs/week, made over $60k this year, am appreciated for my work. Lots of vacation.

It's kind of a no-brainer.

BioChemPhys wrote:

My old coworker:

38 years old

Brilliant foreign dude with a PhD and 15 years of research experience.

Works 60hrs/week, makes $45k/year, and gets treated like garbage

Me:

27 years old

Bachelor's degrees only. No PhD. No MS.

Work 40-50hrs/week, made over $60k this year, am appreciated for my work. Lots of vacation.

It's kind of a no-brainer.

Once again, another American who is unable to imagine someone valuing something other than money.

It's a plague of utilitarianism.

99% of all phd candidates are very knowledgeable in their specific area of knowledge. This alone, does not make them well rounded, intelligent? I know a few, and let me tell you, many don't know how to change the oil in their car, but can tell you at length and in detail about their topic for their phd.

Many good plumbers or carpenters I know can tell you most President's names and years, and why my car is back-firing, etc, etc. These are well rounded men.

English Professor wrote:

I had a high school english teacher with a phd who insisted we call her "Dr. Burke." She was an idiot. I can confirm this (on more than instinct) ten years later, now that I am a professor.

Sounds about right. And professors I've had who are leaders in their fields typically go by their first names.

BioChemPhys wrote:

My old coworker:

38 years old

Brilliant foreign dude with a PhD and 15 years of research experience.

Works 60hrs/week, makes $45k/year, and gets treated like garbage

Me:

27 years old

Bachelor's degrees only. No PhD. No MS.

Work 40-50hrs/week, made over $60k this year, am appreciated for my work. Lots of vacation.

It's kind of a no-brainer.

Not for all of us. I'm an American who out earned you by a significant margin and returned to school for a doctorate in engineering. I simply wanted a career in research. My earnings outlook is a bit better with a PhD as well, but the decision really wasn't a monetary one. To each their own in my opinion.

The answer to the original question depends on university and field of study. It isn't a battle of pure iq in many cases to earn a phd from a directional state school in a weak topic. On the other hand, some of the STEM fields at places like MIT and Stanford have ~25-50% failure rates on their qualifying exams. It's quite difficult to even get admitted to those departments, so the people 'failing' out are not dummies.

A- wrote:

Are folks with Ph.D.s generally more intelligent than the overall population? Or, perhaps, they're just more driven/motivate to stick with the grad program to the end?

Math and science PhDs much more so.

Lesser PhDs less so.

End of thread.

Some engineering and science cats have no social skills though. We talking about cognitive horsepower tho doe.

4runner wrote:

BioChemPhys wrote:

My old coworker:

38 years old

Brilliant foreign dude with a PhD and 15 years of research experience.

Works 60hrs/week, makes $45k/year, and gets treated like garbage

Me:

27 years old

Bachelor's degrees only. No PhD. No MS.

Work 40-50hrs/week, made over $60k this year, am appreciated for my work. Lots of vacation.

It's kind of a no-brainer.

Once again, another American who is unable to imagine someone valuing something other than money.

It's a plague of utilitarianism.

Ditto. As someone who will be entering a PhD program in physics in the near future, I can tell you I am not chasing the money. My first priority is to learn and discover.

Not that I don't want to earn a high salary though and I don't expect that to be very difficult whether I choose to stay in academia(median salary of $68K) or go into industry(there really is no limit here depending on how useful you make yourself but expect six figures).

Your subjects asks if > average intelligence is a necessary condition for being in a PhD program. Your post asks: "Are folks with Ph.D.s generally more intelligent than the overall population?", which is asking about a difference in means between two groups. These are very different questions. Which one did you mean?

To your thread title, I would say, there's probably some podunk PhD where you pay your own way in which it is possible to get by with an IQ of 99 or something. To the question in your post, I would say, definitely. GRE scores aren't a perfect measure of intelligence but they are about the best we've got, and on average, PhD programs have high GRE-scoring graduates.

I find it really intriguing that this seems to have developed an aspect of "success in money" vs "success in achievement". The biggest problem that those in the achievement and curiousity group have is that they don't see the way that students have come to view the "game". The cost of education has become so ridiculously inflated that someone can't just afford to get a Ph.D. because they want to. If someone can make a comparable amount of money then they see that Ph.D. as a waste of resources. However it seems that the other group that values making the most while spending the least fails to see the point in doing something for enjoyment, rather than financial purpose. It's just a perspective of circumstance I guess.

Just wanted to say thank you for this post. I "dropped out" of a master's program, but it had nothing to do with me not being smart enough. The work environment was simply unbearable and ridiculous. I probably could have filed a lawsuit, but I didn't think it'd be worth everything, so I just left with nothing.

Almost all my current friends are PhD students or PhD holders in STEM fields. I've already posted in this thread about PhDs and intelligence, but I will say that getting a PhD is much more about ego and perseverance than anything else. I know people who are not very smart, take a TOOOOONNNNN of crap, but persist onward no matter what and will obtain a PhD because of it. One girl I know took 7 years, and she was even in a good lab with a decent adviser. To me it really seemed like most people getting PhDs were doing it just to feel special. Not because it was a wise financial or career move. Not because of enjoyment. Not because of passion. Solely because they wanted that extra special blue ribbon. Having been out of that arena awhile now and having time to reflect on it all as I out earn them all, enjoy more free time, and live a happier life, I tend to view them as suckers duped by the system. It's very much like in "Chasing Bobby Fischer" when the coach shows the kid he has endless duplicates of certificates that don't actually mean anything. These people have been tricked into thinking they do mean something. Oh well. More jobs for me.

Cool story.

You couldn't even get through a masters? We're they assaulting you?

fisiks wrote:

4runner wrote:

Once again, another American who is unable to imagine someone valuing something other than money.

It's a plague of utilitarianism.

Ditto. As someone who will be entering a PhD program in physics in the near future, I can tell you I am not chasing the money. My first priority is to learn and discover.

Not that I don't want to earn a high salary though and I don't expect that to be very difficult whether I choose to stay in academia(median salary of $68K) or go into industry(there really is no limit here depending on how useful you make yourself but expect six figures).

You guys are PhD people yet can't even read? Money was one of the three things I compared/contrasted between the two paths. Also, my friend is struggling to survive on his salary, so it is very significant in his case.

Oooops wrote:

Cool story.

You couldn't even get through a masters? We're they assaulting you?

I left the program due to an outrageous working environment in combination with recognizing it would not be in my best interest to invest 2-3 years in this particular program, something that has turned out to be absolutely correct. It's like realizing you want to be an engineer 1 year into a bachelor's degree in theater. Does it make more sense to finish out the theater degree and then switch to engineering or accept the loss of one year and switch immediately? Pretty simple logic...

A consequence of increased funding perhaps? My old department always loved to trot out the figure that every professor (15-20 total) recieved at least $1 million per year.

Pound sign real talk wrote:

4runner wrote:

Salaries have gone up dramatically.

In the early 1990s, the normal salary for RA's and TA's was ~12k$ a year in engineering at a top-two department in that branch of engineering. If you were senior and good enough, e.g., to write grant proposals with a chance of getting your prof funded, you might make 14-15k$.

Post-docs were in the 18-24k$ range.

I knew salaried research faculty who were pulling down mid 40k$.

I'm glad the salaries have gone up, but I don't think that I would have ever left grad school if I were making 30k$ a year.

A consequence of increased funding perhaps? My old department always loved to trot out the figure that every professor (15-20 total) recieved at least $1 million per year.

Funding received is not the same as personal earnings.

It is extremely unusual for any prof to make more than 1M$. Even in med schools, the top profs usually top out in the 5-600k$ range.

In the only cases of which I know, the profs were inventors on a heart medication that the university patented. The profit-sharing from the licensing pushed them into the low M$ range.

Jddjgdhdj73733 wrote:

A- wrote:

Are folks with Ph.D.s generally more intelligent than the overall population? Or, perhaps, they're just more driven/motivate to stick with the grad program to the end?

Math and science PhDs much more so.

Lesser PhDs less so.

End of thread.

Some engineering and science cats have no social skills though. We talking about cognitive horsepower tho doe.

I don't know about the EOT; classics people are impressive to me.