Is PhD in pure math worth it?

[Daniel Duffy]

I don't think any active research mathematician does what he does for fame, and the odds of gaining such fame are staggeringly unfavorable. Other than the fame part, the level of ability among the best mathematicians is such that no merely ambitious mortal can hope to compete with them in solving the difficult problems or getting the prize jobs.

Only 2-5 really great mathematicians are born per century.

 

[Umnik]

It is worth it if you really want to do research in it - otherwise it is not worth it

 

[Daniel Duffy]

It is worth it if you really want to do research in it - otherwise it is not worth it

Yes and no. Many problems in industry need people with research mindset which you only get by mucking for years on a PhD.

 

[Umnik]

Yes and no. Many problems in industry need people with research mindset which you only get by mucking for years on a PhD.

But (using my own experience) doing PhD to get a degree and not because of wishing to do it all my life often leads to failing out

 

[Four]

Well, it's the middle of my first semester doing the MS in CS and think I want out. I can't understand why Intro to Algorithms is so ridiculously hard. It seems abnormal to be struggling like this but some other students love it and are breezing through the class but my brain feels like it's walking through mud! I talked to them and they said they are bad at math, but algorithms is easy. I found discrete math and calculus to be easy, so have been thinking of switching to a MS in math.

Can you work as a quant (doing strategy) with a M.S. In Math at an IB or HF? Or do they want only MFEs and PhDs?

Full disclosure: I'm at NYU, so may be able attempt to transfer to the math dept.

 

[Four]

Only 2-5 really great mathematicians are born per century.

Maybe more like 10-20? But it's true you don't see many Terrence Taos and Grigori Perelmans walking down the street.

Genius is so relative. If 99% of the human population had an IQ of 80 any of us here would be celebrated geniuses.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

Maybe more like 10-20? But it's true you don't see many Terrence Taos and Grigori Perelmans walking down the street.

Genius is so relative. If 99% of the human population had an IQ of 80 any of us here would be celebrated geniuses.

Maybe more like 10-20? But it's true you don't see many Terrence Taos and Grigori Perelmans walking down the street.

Genius is so relative. If 99% of the human population had an IQ of 80 any of us here would be celebrated geniuses.

Well, those of us with IQ >= 80 :D

 

[Four]

No worries, someone with an IQ of 80 is like a really smart chimp, but they can't write or spell. Wow, imagine being you in a world full of people that can't write, spell, or do more than add or subtract. It would be a lonely life...poor geniuses lol.

 

[Gary Lyndaker]

I never got a Ph.D. but I am one who found "pure math" fun and beautiful! I think a great many (pure) mathematicians agree. If your goal is to make a fortune, I'd advise an easier path, though - as well as one you enjoy.

 

[Gary Lyndaker]

Jesse Levermore: "Men should again strive for diversity in experiences and not pigeonhole themselves immediately into one tiny research area."

Studying under a "good" Ph.D. advisor in mathematics looks something like this: http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/potentialstudents.html

Even a good undergrad math adviser shows the same attitude about the breadth of mathematics and of ideas.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

[...] "pure math" fun and beautiful! I think a great many (pure) mathematicians agree.

You mention 'pure' twice. Does it mean that there is a 'non-pure' maths out there?

 

[Gary Lyndaker]

You mention 'pure' twice. Does it mean that there is a 'non-pure' maths out there?

Pure = Math unsoiled by the intent of application

 

[Daniel Duffy]

Pure = Math unsoiled by the intent of application

Oh dear

That rules out
Euler
Gauss
Lagrange
Hamilton
John von Neumann
Alan Turing (he won WWII)
etc.

Only Bourbaki left :D That's unsullied maths.

 

[Gary Lyndaker]

Spent most of my career in software development, so I "fell" pretty far.

 

[John Marks]

I don't know why you hate pure math so much. Without it there would be almost no progress in any other science. Pure mathematicians develop everything you use now. There would be no computers, no engineers, no statistics. Math is the single most important field.

To OP do what you like. In the UK the applied math departments are mostly for mathematical physics. Statistics is in the pure math departments. James Simons has a Math PhD, I think he did pretty well.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

A PhD in maths _may_ not be worth it if you do not (intend to ) use it after they let you out of the ivory tower.

 

[John Marks]

You can go almost anywhere with a Math PhD from a top place. Math PhD doesn't necessarily exclude applications.

 

[Daniel Duffy]

You can go almost anywhere with a Math PhD from a top place. Math PhD doesn't necessarily exclude applications.

The 'place' (aka branding...) is not all that important. Supervisor is more important.

A PhD in maths means you are good in a very very narrow area that 3 people (including you, excluding supervisor) know. No a-priori conclusions can be drawn about other aptitudes.

e.g. pure maths meets industrial computer programming.

 

[John Marks]

There is no need to find a direct application of your dissertarion. The skills you learn are way more important and useful.

 

[bigbadwolf]

A PhD in maths means you are good in a very very narrow area that 3 people (including you, excluding supervisor) know. No a-priori conclusions can be drawn about other aptitudes

In some cases it can actually be an impediment as the habits of thought you've acquired (and which are now part of your nature) are very different to those you need in the other area. The habits of thought you acquire in class field theory or automorphic forms are not going to help you in any real-world occupation. What you've become is over-trained and over-specialised in one very narrow area that society is not willing to pay for.