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

That's certainly a good idea, thank you. My feeling, however, is that that crowd may well simply see the letters "PhD" and encourage that route, as many of them are very smart mathematicians who likely adored their doctorates. And that's great! It's certainly valued input, and so I will post similar questions there.

However, despite the abundance of trolling, I have found LRC to often give nuanced responses to questions like these, with often very useful input. So I post the questions here, too.

Sounds like you don’t have any practical experience but think academic work would make for an attractive candidate for some company. First things first. A masters in stats has less value in industry than a six sigma black belt, and it’s a lot more work. Insurance companies are interested in a stats background and if you like the field then consider becoming an Actuary. In the US a PhD in stats (or quant, math, or even finance) is a research degree, it means very little to companies. The exception is a PhD in Quantitative Finance, which could get you a position with an investment bank (heavy advanced math required).

Let me be blunt. Sounds like you don’t know what you want but think companies will be impressed that you have a PhD and since academics is all you have you want to stay in your comfort zone. Getting a job now will not hurt you at all and will get you some practical experience and help you understand what employers really value. It will also help you figure out what you want to do and then you can better target what advanced education to pursue.

HM guy wrote:

That's certainly a good idea, thank you. My feeling, however, is that that crowd may well simply see the letters "PhD" and encourage that route, as many of them are very smart mathematicians who likely adored their doctorates. And that's great! It's certainly valued input, and so I will post similar questions there.

However, despite the abundance of trolling, I have found LRC to often give nuanced responses to questions like these, with often very useful input. So I post the questions here, too.

I personally would go into computer science or informatics if I was smart enough to get a PhD in math.

I wouldn't get a PhD in math unless I were going to be a research mathematician. Unless you're just passionate about math for the sake of it.

Earnings-wise, you can use exceptional math skills to make a lot of money in other areas like working at hedge funds, investment banks, working on Wall Street or the UK equivalent, etc.

Thank you. So getting a statistics-focused job now would be better than persuing a PhD (whilst doing placements in the summers), or in getting a 1-year masters, it seems? I am planning on applying for some such jobs - it will not hold me back in later years that I would lack additional qualifications?

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

Thanks

vonschnapps wrote:

Let me be blunt. Sounds like you don’t know what you want but think companies will be impressed that you have a PhD and since academics is all you have you want to stay in your comfort zone.

+1

This is true. You must show that you can apply that math to something which is why if I were you, I probably would have double majored in math and computer science. If your grades are strong you could be a good candidate to work somewhere like Google.

I work as a software developer and I would have to depend less on 3rd party libraries/SDK's if I was good at math since I would be able to write them myself.

norma jean wrote:

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

Thanks

The Americanized version is incorrect though. Maths is the proper terminology because there is no one MATH. Just as you don't major in Science, you major in one of the Sciences.

I have good grades in my programming courses, although I don't think the languages used are the most relevant (although they couldn't hurt, and hopefully demonstrate an ability to learn to code in other languages). Thank you for your advice - it is all being noted.

HM guy wrote:

I have good grades in my programming courses, although I don't think the languages used are the most relevant (although they couldn't hurt, and hopefully demonstrate an ability to learn to code in other languages). Thank you for your advice - it is all being noted.

I assume you mean Matlab and FORTRAN. Not very widely used. More for niche markets. If using Java, C#, Swift, Kotlin, C++ or C, you stand a better chance of getting somewhere as a professional

I used MATLAB, Xpress, and R/RStudio (and, obviously, Latex, which I know isn't the type of thing you were referring to). I haven't looked into programming as a career, so apologies if these languages have been stupid things to bring up. I do notice that none other than MATLAB were on your list. However, I did pick up coding in all of these languages very quickly, and got good grades in each course, so it may be indicative of some potential in this area.

I don't know about UK/EU options but from an American perspective there will be plenty of opportunities with a PhD in Applied Math or Stat. You just need to just why you want to work in industry. Master vs PhD in stats will be a wash, sometimes it opens door but sometimes it doesn't.

Just having an undergraduate degree won't necessarily disqualify you from some positions, but you need to show you can handle more advanced work. Are you taking a gap year? Sounds like it. If you do choose the work route, make sure you have a reason why you took it and what you learned from it.

Thank you. You are correct, I did not apply for further study/industry jobs immediately due to perusing a different, unrelated career, but was always strict with myself that I only got to do that for a year. Of course, since I wish to return to industry or academia in that timeframe, I must begin asking these questions and looking at my options now, in preparation for Dec applications.

I work in quantitative finance. The jobs are highly sought out and hard to get. Of course, the financial rewards are there to match. The first place I worked ONLY interviewed PhDs for entry level. It was just an easy screening to apply to resumes to reduce the applicant pool to a manageable number. I'm sure that filtered out a lot of good candidates, but you have to start somewhere.

But ...

Is a PhD necessary for most industry professional employment? No, not at all. But, ultimately, it does open up doors a lot faster.

Having said all that - you should NOT be deciding to do a PhD with a view to the job it is going to get you. If you go in to a PhD with that mindset, I would put your probability of completion at 1% making all of this moot. You'll only survive if you really love what you're doing and are fully invested. None of my colleagues (PhD holders in quantitative fields) went in to their PhDs thinking they'd ever leave academia. None.

Now this is my kind of thread right here. I have a PhD in math but I bailed on academia and sold out to industry. I did algebraic number theory and arithmetic geometry (and some other stuff) and I can tell you that there aren't many industries concerned with the main conjecture of Iwasawa theory.

A PhD in stats will open different doors, not necessarily more though. It might also scare some companies away because you're gonna be overqualified for basic biostats jobs but you can go into in finance and work as a quant and make serious bank. You can also try to jump on the "big data" hype train which is basically just a bunch of CS grads who think basic linear regression techniques is the answer to all the world's problems (bUt MuH LiNeAr ClaSsIFiErS ).

From experience I can tell you with certainty the answer is "no." Then again, I'd rather shoot myself than do OR and Game Theory is meh. Crypto is fun but you have to work for the government or know how to code in really low level languages and then pray to God a company like ARM or Intel or someone takes you on as a researcher or scientist. Easiest way to get into those is probably through post-doc (aka slave labor).

Not sure what this is asking really but math is a good major to have on the resume. If you mean getting a first job, no one really gets that without a connection or pure luck these days anyways.

Go straight to PhD. Master's beforehand won't save you time (you'll still need 4-5 years at least for the PhD alone). It might help you get into a better grad school though since you'll be more prepared for the Math GRE subject test in theory. But don't expect your PhD program to wrap up quicker than it would without a Master's coming in unless you're like a .01% genius.

vonschnapps wrote:

A masters in stats has less value in industry than a six sigma black belt, and it’s a lot more work.

Any industry that takes Six Sigma or PMP certifications as anything more than a joke (let alone more valuable than a master's degree in stats) should be promptly walked away from.

Besides, if OP wants to learn a bunch of stupid bullsh!t with made-up concepts then biggest bang for the buck is by far an MBA at a regional school.

Stats, Economics, Operations Ph.D.s are all good for industry.

Ph.D.s obviously give you a leg-up in industry. You can also leave after a Master's with no debt, which is wayyyyyy better than having debt and no flexibility.

1) Absolutely, yes. It is not close. stats ph.d. >> stats m.s. You are more guaranteed a good job, you will have access to better jobs and you will have no debt.

2) Some. C.S., Economics, and Operations will open more. Business Ph.D.s are usually academic and will open more. Stats is better than Math, though math m.s. is more common for actuary jobs. Ranking absolutely matters. A math, c.s., or stats ph.d. from a top 5-10 program is valuable, while a lower-ranked is less valuable than using the connections from a top-ranked undergrad.

3) No. A Ph.D. obviously has positions not available to others. You can go after working for a couple of years. Some jobs like actuaries just require exams and credentials. Top graduate degrees let you start as associates without the grunt work and give you more connections. The ranking matters for intellectual careers like this. Do not get a stats Ph.D. at a nowhere school. look at their placement and connections.

4) This is the most obvious question by far. While you are young, at the peak of your talent, energy and opportunity, do you want to take debt and have it start running away from you, or do you want to earn credentials that will pay off in the long-run? Absolutely use your energy and talent to get into the black. This is the #1 priority of any of your decisions.

(You can still leave the Ph.D. after the Master's. What are they going to do? just keep good connections in case you want to come back. The people in good positions would not hate having a connection to a successful industry professional who may succeed later on in different arenas.)

Also, most foundationally, have low expectations. Take what you get. Be thankful to have any job.

An advanced credential will set you apart and help you compete in the job market. That is what this is all for. Do what you can, try to enjoy it and focus on the market value.

Student loan debt is the worst way to spend your peak years.

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.