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

High quality PhD programs in academic subject from the softest to the hardest fields all fund their PhDs with full tuition + a stipend. I did my PhD in the social sciences at a top 10 schools. We all got at least 24,000 a year in addition to tuition, health care, etc. I got 30k. It was livable and I accrued zero debt over five years.

I'm now teaching at a flagship state school (one of the average ones) and although the PhD candidates here are probably not as talented as where I studied, they are still fully funded.

Yes, you have to teach and be a research assistant for that money. But that is in fact part of your training.

Don't pay for a PhD. If you have to pay for a PhD, it's unlikely there are many jobs in your field that will pay you later. The exception is if you want to go to a place like Oxford or Cambridge, where you will probably have to pay unless you get external funding, but the name carries itself later. I'd still recommend against that.

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?

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?

For some good data on this, scroll down to the third graph ("Project talent: general, math, verbal, and spatial aptitude) in this link:

There's lots of information there, but the key point is the difference between bachelors, masters, and PhD recipients in every specialty. At each step, the filter is a little narrower, so that average "intelligence" (or whatever you want to call these scores) is a little higher.

Does that mean EVERY PhD student in a given specialty is smarter than EVERY bachelors student? Of course not. There are some relatively thick PhDs (or, to be nicer about it, people whose persistence is their strongest point), and lots of very smart people who haven't pursued higher education. But if, like the OP, you're asking about general trends, then yes, PhDs are generally smarter than people without PhDs.

Note, for example, that the PhDs in social sciences and humanities actually score higher IN MATH APTITUDE than the bachelors recipients in math and physical sciences. That's a pretty solid indicator that a PhD is a general marker of intelligence. Similarly, check out the verbal scores of the math and physical sciences PhDs: way higher than even humanities masters degrees.

Yes. Full tuition waiver plus a stipend. Im actually paying down my undergrad loans now. I do have to pay a (relatively modest) student fee (which is more atypical at this level and is being contested by the grad students).

Also, research travel and expenses paid for with a grant. The second part is more advisor dependent, of course. My next several projects, I'll be the one writing the grants. So it's not entirely free money.

As it is, several people have said it...you shouldn't be paying to go to grad school.

malmo wrote:

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

.

Exactly. Height isn't everything in basketball, though it matters a lot. Neither is intelligence everything in getting a PhD, and getting a PhD in something, somewhere, is vastly easier than getting to the NBA. You'd better be exceptional in some other way if you aren't even average in height/intelligence to reach the NBA/get a PhD, though.

The vast majority of people with a PhD have above average intelligence, no doubt. But not all of them.

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?

I think the operative here is you must have above average intelligence to want to get a Ph.D.

reality.... wrote:

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.

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. All of those are livable amounts for a single young adult. i was able to live very comfortably during grad school.

I don't been to offend you but why didn't your wife work?

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. These numbers get inflated by 50-70% if you work in military or oil.

- I earned my Ph.D. in a science related field

- It was extremely difficult and of course time consuming

- I received some program assistance

- I do not consider myself smarter than most, but you certainly have to have a strong grasp of the material

- Stick with it, that will be the hard part

- I continued to work full-time with a lot of flexibility, which is why I did not have a full stipend

- A lot of people drop out after one year

- A lot more drop out after the course work is completed and then had trouble with the research or the writing and simply drift away or get another MS

- The hardest part for me was sitting for and passing the written and then the oral exams.

The oral exams was four hours of my committee explaining to me how little I actually did know.

- It is worth it

- I was not a traditional PhD student, if there is such a thing

it'll depend on the subject. Exercise physiology PhD's are barely average intelligence because all the smart people go into subjects that challenge them.

Above the average of those that don't get it!

Yes--I was not that when I attempted to get a Ph. D. in economics. Of course it did not help having to compete against a lot of foreign students. It quantitative fields language is less a barrier so it was like being a D 3 runner having to compete regularly at D1. Of course with a strong interest comes motivation and presumably a greater retention of the material so that was probably part of the problem.

Wife worked, but she was in grad school, too. Also a low-paying one (freaking library science for her MLS so she could be a librarian.)

The ex phys department here was considered one of the best in the country. At both that I went to, actually. I'm not saying I was a top national student (far from it), but there were groundbreaking physiologists and statisticians in both departments. I ended up getting into research that was geared toward NASA and not true exercise physiology. It was aimed more at countermeasures to space flight.

Also, this was 15 years ago. So if a typical post-doc was $32k then, it is probably much higher now. Sorry if that

Anyway, I do agree that the typical Ph.D. student was more intelligent than a typical undergrad. At the same time, I don't think you need to be brilliant to be a Ph.D. Professionalism, timeliness, networking, motivation are all more important once you reach the intelligence threshold.

Horatio wrote:

I don't see STEM PhDs as any brighter than other fields. At the highest levels, everyone is smart; it doesn't matter what your field. "STEM majors" is just a new marketing ploy for parents who think their idiot kids that can't get into Ivies might have a chance for a future.

Not a marketing ploy to do anything, and it is certainly not to appease parents in any way.

The term arose from the National Science Foundation, and those types of paths for students has been pushed by the Obama Administration. He has pushed Community Colleges and high schools to push this kind of education as we (Americans) are lacking here.

The high school my son goes to has a program with the local community college and Honda so that if you successfully complete the STEM program at the high school and then continue for just 2 years at the Community College, Honda will have a $50,000 a year job waiting for you and will pay for your community college tuition.

One of the things that is the case in this particular high school is that the smartest students don't typically go the STEM route. It appears to be a bit dumbed down, and so a kid who wants to major in physics at an Ivy League school would be better off taking all the AP science classes and just going that route instead of the STEM path at the high school. This could be different at different schools, however.

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?

Are DI runners generally more talented than the overall population? Or, perhaps, they're just more driven/motivated to run faster?

You only need to be smart enough to operate a computer. PhD's cost a couple hundred bucks on the internet, complete with transcript. I found out my new boss had 3 fake degrees, including a PhD and 20 years of fake employment history as well. I told HR and they fired me for being a trouble maker. So I think it's safe to say that the store bought PhD's are just as good as the real ones to a lot of employers.

$ 32,000 in 2000

Has the same buying power as:

$44,104.25 in 2015

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.

This is a really interesting dialogue!

I did a PhD in a STEM field, finishing in '08. I would say all of the students I interacted with were generally "smarter" (if you call it that) than, say, your average undergrad. Mostly they were passionate and interested in what they were studying. I think a person of average intelligence but with a high degree of passion could get a PhD in some of the less quantitative sciences. Mostly I agree with TX HS Coach who said:

"Professionalism, timeliness, networking, motivation are all more important once you reach the [minimum] intelligence threshold."

This is so true.

I was unusual as I was sponsored by my employer and had a set timeline to complete my program within. So -- a PhD program views that as a student not requiring funding which = free labor. That and extensive, relevant work experience was a selling point with the programs I considered (in a way I kinda interviewed them rather than the other way around). I was barely above "average" at my undergrad institution, but did well as a graduate student b/c I was passionate, professional, very productive, and externally-funded.

krispy kremlin_._._ wrote:

More intelligent than the general population: definitely.

More politically astute than the general population: in most cases, no.

The quality of PhD candidates has been in rapid decline over the past decade. They are starting to let just about anyone with a pulse into one kind of program or another.

Disgraced former general manager of the MBTA, Beverly Scott, would be a good example of a PhD degree for the sake of the "PhD".

How is Scott disagraced? I've never heard of her but I googled her and it looks like Obama has given her a new job.