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

A staggering amount of bs.

I think it's telling about average intelligence of LetsRun, when half the people in this thread have commented simply on the absolute intelligence of people they know that have Ph.D's and instead of relative intelligence. It's similar to having the average person answer that they are above average drivers, simply because they have no understanding of average. Of course one must also ask the question if we should be discussing the median intelligence instead of mean, but I digress.

So to answer your question, yes, it takes above average intelligence to get a Ph.D.

To elaborate, I would definitely agree with the fact that a lot of the work in a STEM Ph.D. involves a depth of knowledge about a specific subject. However, the breadth of knowledge is, in most cases, larger than that of the average plebe you grab off the street.

I failed out of a PhD program. During my time there I saw several very bright people drop out, and I eventually dropped out myself. Actually I took my masters, but some people left with nothing. I will say that it has more to do with one's fit in the program and engagement with the material. In grad school you have a lot of freedom and it can be easy to goof around if you're not totally into what you're doing. So, even if you're really intelligent, if you're doing a lot of stuff other than what your PhD is about then you have a good chance of failing out. A lot of very bright people just are not focused and are into other things, or they just picked the wrong thing to study. You might leave the program an expert in something but not the subject you were supposed to be studying and writing about.

To answer OP's question I'd say you do need to have above average intelligence. And what does that mean? I think intelligence has something to do with being able to absorb information and infer new things from it. A potential PhD also needs to be engaged with the subject matter he/she has chosen, and the people he/she is working with. You can be super intelligent but studying something that you find boring. This happens a lot. Looking back I can say that the topic I chose was not really what I should have been studying. Sometimes it takes a while to get a sense of what you could spend hours and years doing, and enjoy it.

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?

Yes and yes. The test scores (GRE), transcripts (for bachelors and/or masters degrees), reading lists, qualifying exams, and oral exams will usually weed out those that are less intelligent. After that it, it's a matter of endurance. Some of the smartest people I know have dropped out of PhD programs, but usually intelligent people will figure out a way to complete the degree.

But just because someone is an expert in one field doesn't necessarily mean they are well read and intelligent in other fields. But usually they have good skills for critical thinking and knowing how to consider sources to be well informed in other areas. And usually, a PhD is held by someone who has a lifelong love of learning in general, but not always.

STEM PhD here at a top 5 university. Being surrounded by some of the extremely intelligent people here makes me feel like an idiot.

I'm technically a Ph.D. dropout.

I don't think the work was difficult. I just attempted to go into a branch of research that was too far from my initial undergrad and master's degree and I didn't love it enough to want to do leveling work for 2 years before getting to the good stuff. When I worked it all out, I realized my first real job wouldn't have been until I was 32 years old.

It just wasn't worth it financially to do something I was doing for the wrong reasons. I noticed at the time I kept wanting to discuss training methods/coaching/running performance/etc. I should have went into research in that area. It didn't pay as well, though, and I let that dictate my choices.

My advice to anyone who wants a Ph.D. is to go into an area you're truly passionate about. The students aren't necessarily more intelligent than the ones you meet as an undergrad, but they definitely are more heavily involved in their area of study. I think it is like what someone said above - mostly about perseverance.

PhD guy wrote:

A lot of excuses.

Meant for me? The degree isn't that difficult to get. It is mostly like rushing an academic frat for four straight years. A bunch of hoop jumping and task management.

I was actually disappointed in what I was learning in the program. It was very rarely anything directly related to what I wanted to do unless I was in the lab.

I did learn how to kill rats humanely, so that is a plus.

Is it worth $18-20k per year of debt? Especially when you're projected to do a post-doc at $32k for 2 years after completion of your degree? I don't think so. Terribly stupid financial move, which supports what I said in the earlier post - anyone pursuing a Ph.D. better be very passionate about their chosen specialty.

I was not. And I realized that and got out. I advise anyone in the same boat to do the same.

:\

Seriously, anyone who can get into a PhD program should be competitive for an assistantship. Tuition waiver plus stipend. It seems a lot of people don't realize this. This is common, especially in the sciences.

I think they're generally the top 5% among their cohort. More than that, they have a passion for a subject and, generally, a relentless desire to push on when it gets tough. It's a very solitary experience, too. I found it tough to have to self-perpetuate every day. But once I set my mind to something, I don't give up. Either you're that way inclined or just obsessive - either work well when you've got to work solidly on something for 3-4 years.

There's nothing wrong with a little imposter syndrome to drive you on! I actually value mine.

I'm in the social sciences. For a tier-1 research school, a 95th percentile + score is the minimum.

those who aren't admitted with full funding are typically much less intelligent...

I had good test scores and decent grades, but by letsrun standards I'm retarded (but then again anyone less than 1450 SAT/GRE here is considered retarded).

Nevertheless, I also taught a few years at the college level at state universities, and if you had put be back 10 years to their age group 9 times out of 10 I'd test in the top 10%.

Unless they someone how did it part time over a number of years, I don't know a single person who paid for their PhD. I thought it was standard that you recieved a full tuition waiver and a stipend. I had masters programs offer me a full waiver and a $17k stipend.

occasional trollposter wrote:

If you can be in the NBA with below-average height (Spud Webb, Muggsy Bogues, and a few others),

You just named two players with 44+ vertical leaps -- amoung the extreme elites who have ever played in the game

.

My PhD program (humanities) was filled with really smart people who would weren't all that interested in making money (which is why they were in a humanities PhD program instead of a top-tier law or business school). They were extremely good at understanding, remembering, and synthesizing huge amounts of complicated written material, and doing so quickly. College at a top undergraduate school had been easy for me and I tested very well, but the best students in my grad program made me look stupid. I know that the "average" undergraduate couldn't come close to doing what was required to succeed in this kind of program.

Ph.D. was in a less-funded subject - Exercise Physiology. Can't name the specific specialty because it is too specific.

I had a teaching assistantship the first year and was going to move into a research assistantship once one of the professor's 2 funded RAs graduated. Tuition waiver is nice, but it didn't cover living expenses for married couple. So, yeah, we were losing money due to that. The TA job paid something pathetic like $1k per class per semester. It was worthless.

Some Ph.D.s get money above their tuition. The less-funded disciplines do not get a lot of money.

Looking back, I had an offer to stay at the University I received my MS from and do a slightly extended curriculum (3 more years) without leveling work and receive the Ph.D.

I opted out due to prestige and because I thought the more detailed specialty would be appealing. What I underestimated is how much I like the original subject and how I should have just gone into running/S&C research at the original university.

It just wasn't interesting and it was in direct conflict with my other life goals (family, finances, etc.)

I'm still sticking with my main point - you need to love what you do to be happy in your job. Same thing goes with Ph.D. - you'll fare better if you love it.

Some of you who were fully funded (plus living expenses) - what are your Ph.D.s in?

Texas HS Coach wrote:

Is it worth $18-20k per year of debt? Especially when you're projected to do a post-doc at $32k for 2 years after completion of your degree? I don't think so. Terribly stupid financial move, which supports what I said in the earlier post - anyone pursuing a Ph.D. better be very passionate about their chosen specialty.

:

No.

But any program that doesn't give you a tuition waiver plus stipend isn't worth going to. I did mine in the early 90's and I got a tuition waiver plus somewhere between $20-25K in stipend. That was pretty typical.

As someone who is a PhD student and fully funded, I'm doing geology.