PhD

Is it possible to finish a science related PhD in a year or a year and a half?

At 10/1/2013 10:38:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Is it possible to finish a science related PhD in a year or a year and a half?

Depends on where you are starting from.

If you are just beginning it, and you have research to do, a dissertation to write and defend, and have to make a living in the meantime, then expect to spend between four and six years. If you end up on a waiting list for a fellowship, it may take much longer; openings for research fellowships are scarce and the competition is fierce.

Three years is sometimes cited as a minimum, but that is a horribly optimistic everything-going-right-the-first-time scenario. Don't be surprised to spend six years on your research, eight months on your dissertation, and then having to re-write and re-submit it after failing your first defense.

At 10/1/2013 10:38:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Is it possible to finish a science related PhD in a year or a year and a half?

LOL, of course not. You can get 4 years if you are lucky or if you are an MD/PhD. The average for a good engineering program is about 6. PhD programs are designed to be that long. You probably will not even be doing your own work the first year and instead will be assisting another lab member with his or her work.

Also, even if you did finish the program in one year, you would be setting yourself up for failure. If you want a job, you have to get grants, and those are going to go to people with a long track record of successful work.

What if you were to expand on your Master's thesis?

At 10/2/2013 8:22:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
What if you were to expand on your Master's thesis?

Read the previous posts. You masters thesis isn't anywhere near the level of time and effort that your dissertation will require, and you will still need to do the research. One year doesn't cut it.

Besides which, your dissertation will need to have a different premise than your thesis. Why would you think anyone will allow you to just recycle your thesis?

At 10/2/2013 12:20:50 AM, Chrysippus wrote:

At 10/1/2013 10:38:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Is it possible to finish a science related PhD in a year or a year and a half?

Depends on where you are starting from.

If you are just beginning it, and you have research to do, a dissertation to write and defend, and have to make a living in the meantime, then expect to spend between four and six years. If you end up on a waiting list for a fellowship, it may take much longer; openings for research fellowships are scarce and the competition is fierce.

Three years is sometimes cited as a minimum, but that is a horribly optimistic everything-going-right-the-first-time scenario. Don't be surprised to spend six years on your research, eight months on your dissertation, and then having to re-write and re-submit it after failing your first defense.

ugh ... Why can't we just all not work and be rich anyway?

At 10/2/2013 8:22:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
What if you were to expand on your Master's thesis?

That might cut down on the time, but you won't reduce it to a year. Some PhD programs involve getting a Master's Degree first.

At 10/5/2013 7:54:57 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/2/2013 12:20:50 AM, Chrysippus wrote:

At 10/1/2013 10:38:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Is it possible to finish a science related PhD in a year or a year and a half?

Depends on where you are starting from.

If you are just beginning it, and you have research to do, a dissertation to write and defend, and have to make a living in the meantime, then expect to spend between four and six years. If you end up on a waiting list for a fellowship, it may take much longer; openings for research fellowships are scarce and the competition is fierce.

Three years is sometimes cited as a minimum, but that is a horribly optimistic everything-going-right-the-first-time scenario. Don't be surprised to spend six years on your research, eight months on your dissertation, and then having to re-write and re-submit it after failing your first defense.

ugh ... Why can't we just all not work and be rich anyway?

If nobody did any work, where would everything come from?

At 10/5/2013 7:54:57 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/2/2013 12:20:50 AM, Chrysippus wrote:

At 10/1/2013 10:38:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Is it possible to finish a science related PhD in a year or a year and a half?

Depends on where you are starting from.

If you are just beginning it, and you have research to do, a dissertation to write and defend, and have to make a living in the meantime, then expect to spend between four and six years. If you end up on a waiting list for a fellowship, it may take much longer; openings for research fellowships are scarce and the competition is fierce.

Three years is sometimes cited as a minimum, but that is a horribly optimistic everything-going-right-the-first-time scenario. Don't be surprised to spend six years on your research, eight months on your dissertation, and then having to re-write and re-submit it after failing your first defense.

ugh ... Why can't we just all not work and be rich anyway?

Because communism doesn't work, and the really rich people, who have all the power, like that they have all the power.....

At 10/5/2013 11:27:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 10/5/2013 7:54:57 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/2/2013 12:20:50 AM, Chrysippus wrote:

At 10/1/2013 10:38:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Is it possible to finish a science related PhD in a year or a year and a half?

Depends on where you are starting from.

If you are just beginning it, and you have research to do, a dissertation to write and defend, and have to make a living in the meantime, then expect to spend between four and six years. If you end up on a waiting list for a fellowship, it may take much longer; openings for research fellowships are scarce and the competition is fierce.

Three years is sometimes cited as a minimum, but that is a horribly optimistic everything-going-right-the-first-time scenario. Don't be surprised to spend six years on your research, eight months on your dissertation, and then having to re-write and re-submit it after failing your first defense.

ugh ... Why can't we just all not work and be rich anyway?

If nobody did any work, where would everything come from?

We upload our minds into computers. We'll all live in a simulated reality, but without evil, sickness, or the need for resources. Problems solved!

At 10/7/2013 5:30:18 PM, Magic8000 wrote:

At 10/5/2013 11:27:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 10/5/2013 7:54:57 PM, 000ike wrote:

ugh ... Why can't we just all not work and be rich anyway?

If nobody did any work, where would everything come from?

We upload our minds into computers. We'll all live in a simulated reality, but without evil, sickness, or the need for resources. Problems solved!

The computers will continue to require power, and repairs, and replacements; rapidly depleting the Earth's resources to support the increased "needs" of the creatures who no longer contribute to the nitrogen cycle.

Uploaded humans continue to be evil by stealing data, hogging bandwidth, trespassing in private databases, and disfiguring virtual public property. Some may even create illegal clone armies to spread e-terror and digital mayhem.

Sickness takes on new and sinister forms, as viruses or hacking can completely change someone's uploaded personality - perhaps without even them realizing the change. Elections could be won - and digital dictatorships established - by subtle forms of mind control that permanently alter the values and loyalty of millions. Your health will only be as good as your firewall.

The end state of humanity is a race of mindless servants, eternally worshipping the Great Hakker Bob, who established his complete overlordship in an DDos attack some thirty days after the last human was uploaded. Now, with their personalities altered to find in The Great Hakker Bob all pleasant and admirable qualities, all innovation and competition comes to an end - as the alteration wiped out most of the complexity and individuality of the uploaded minds.

With no-one capable of noticing, or doing anything about it if they had, the mines that provide vital selenium for the computer chips dry up. Bob is incompetent enough not to realize this is a problem until there are no longer any replacement motherboards for the ones that burn out on a daily basis keeping humanity "alive."

"Eternal life" turns out to last about forty years, after which the last operational mainframe with personalities on board encounters a fatal system error, and places an automatic call to systems support. A recorded voices assures humanity that a serviceman will be out to check on the problem within the next two weeks.

I laugh at people who think you need to go to a major college to be successful in life.

At 10/7/2013 6:38:46 PM, Chrysippus wrote:

At 10/7/2013 5:30:18 PM, Magic8000 wrote:

At 10/5/2013 11:27:55 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 10/5/2013 7:54:57 PM, 000ike wrote:

ugh ... Why can't we just all not work and be rich anyway?

If nobody did any work, where would everything come from?

We upload our minds into computers. We'll all live in a simulated reality, but without evil, sickness, or the need for resources. Problems solved!

The computers will continue to require power, and repairs, and replacements; rapidly depleting the Earth's resources to support the increased "needs" of the creatures who no longer contribute to the nitrogen cycle.

Uploaded humans continue to be evil by stealing data, hogging bandwidth, trespassing in private databases, and disfiguring virtual public property. Some may even create illegal clone armies to spread e-terror and digital mayhem.

Sickness takes on new and sinister forms, as viruses or hacking can completely change someone's uploaded personality - perhaps without even them realizing the change. Elections could be won - and digital dictatorships established - by subtle forms of mind control that permanently alter the values and loyalty of millions. Your health will only be as good as your firewall.

The end state of humanity is a race of mindless servants, eternally worshipping the Great Hakker Bob, who established his complete overlordship in an DDos attack some thirty days after the last human was uploaded. Now, with their personalities altered to find in The Great Hakker Bob all pleasant and admirable qualities, all innovation and competition comes to an end - as the alteration wiped out most of the complexity and individuality of the uploaded minds.

With no-one capable of noticing, or doing anything about it if they had, the mines that provide vital selenium for the computer chips dry up. Bob is incompetent enough not to realize this is a problem until there are no longer any replacement motherboards for the ones that burn out on a daily basis keeping humanity "alive."

"Eternal life" turns out to last about forty years, after which the last operational mainframe with personalities on board encounters a fatal system error, and places an automatic call to systems support. A recorded voices assures humanity that a serviceman will be out to check on the problem within the next two weeks.

Ummmmm, we'll fix all that with future technology.

http://www.youtube.com...

At 10/8/2013 3:48:43 PM, Magic8000 wrote:

Ummmmm, we'll fix all that with future technology.

Not likely. Things will go on as they always have gone - badly.

At 10/7/2013 6:43:51 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I laugh at people who think you need to go to a major college to be successful in life.

Well that's a pretty stupid source of amusement... considering that one's chances of living a comfortable life (economically) are much higher when he holds a college degree than not.

At 10/8/2013 4:32:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/7/2013 6:43:51 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I laugh at people who think you need to go to a major college to be successful in life.

Well that's a pretty stupid source of amusement... considering that one's chances of living a comfortable life (economically) are much higher when he holds a college degree than not.

> Chances

> Successful

> Sounds subjective.

At 10/8/2013 4:33:39 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:32:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/7/2013 6:43:51 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I laugh at people who think you need to go to a major college to be successful in life.

Well that's a pretty stupid source of amusement... considering that one's chances of living a comfortable life (economically) are much higher when he holds a college degree than not.

> Chances

> Successful

> Sounds subjective.

...mmm no. Sounds statistical.

At 10/8/2013 4:33:39 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:32:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/7/2013 6:43:51 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I laugh at people who think you need to go to a major college to be successful in life.

Well that's a pretty stupid source of amusement... considering that one's chances of living a comfortable life (economically) are much higher when he holds a college degree than not.

> Chances

> Successful

> Sounds subjective.

Note that he did specify the sort of success (economic). Other sorts of success are not necessarily implied. The average wage of college graduates and non-college graduates is a matter of public record.

At 10/8/2013 4:34:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:33:39 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:32:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/7/2013 6:43:51 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I laugh at people who think you need to go to a major college to be successful in life.

Well that's a pretty stupid source of amusement... considering that one's chances of living a comfortable life (economically) are much higher when he holds a college degree than not.

> Chances

> Successful

> Sounds subjective.

...mmm no. Sounds statistical.

Debate challenge?

Not really. You can go to Harvard and Yale and pass at the top of your class and it wont mean a thing if there isn't any jobs on there market. Trade School, depending on the field, could ripe better fruits. You dont need $100,000 salary to be comfort.

It's called not being fucktarded with your money.

At 10/8/2013 4:40:29 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:34:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:33:39 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:32:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/7/2013 6:43:51 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I laugh at people who think you need to go to a major college to be successful in life.

Well that's a pretty stupid source of amusement... considering that one's chances of living a comfortable life (economically) are much higher when he holds a college degree than not.

> Chances

> Successful

> Sounds subjective.

...mmm no. Sounds statistical.

Debate challenge?

Not really. You can go to Harvard and Yale and pass at the top of your class and it wont mean a thing if there isn't any jobs on there market. Trade School, depending on the field, could ripe better fruits.

So you can. Averages mean absolutely nothing to the statistical outliers.

At 10/8/2013 4:40:29 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:34:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:33:39 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:32:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/7/2013 6:43:51 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I laugh at people who think you need to go to a major college to be successful in life.

Well that's a pretty stupid source of amusement... considering that one's chances of living a comfortable life (economically) are much higher when he holds a college degree than not.

> Chances

> Successful

> Sounds subjective.

...mmm no. Sounds statistical.

Debate challenge?

Not really. You can go to Harvard and Yale and pass at the top of your class and it wont mean a thing if there isn't any jobs on there market. Trade School, depending on the field, could ripe better fruits. You dont need $100,000 salary to be comfort.

It's called not being fucktarded with your money.

Debates are usually performed on issues that can't be easily answered with a cursory google search. As the scope of my argument is that college graduates make more money on average than non-college graduates I'll refer you to this link: http://www.bls.gov...

Also bear in mind that unemployment among non-college graduates is higher, so coupled with the lower wages, to laugh at people who consider college the most effective and reliable route to an economically comfortable future is pretty darn silly.... and that's the extent to which I plan on arguing here.

At 10/8/2013 4:48:15 PM, Chrysippus wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:40:29 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:34:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:33:39 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:32:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/7/2013 6:43:51 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I laugh at people who think you need to go to a major college to be successful in life.

Well that's a pretty stupid source of amusement... considering that one's chances of living a comfortable life (economically) are much higher when he holds a college degree than not.

> Chances

> Successful

> Sounds subjective.

...mmm no. Sounds statistical.

Debate challenge?

Not really. You can go to Harvard and Yale and pass at the top of your class and it wont mean a thing if there isn't any jobs on there market. Trade School, depending on the field, could ripe better fruits.

So you can. Averages mean absolutely nothing to the statistical outliers.

What Outliers?

At 10/8/2013 4:40:29 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
You dont need $100,000 salary to be comfort.

You're right; you need at least a few times that amount.

At 10/8/2013 4:53:56 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:40:29 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:34:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:33:39 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:32:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/7/2013 6:43:51 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I laugh at people who think you need to go to a major college to be successful in life.

Well that's a pretty stupid source of amusement... considering that one's chances of living a comfortable life (economically) are much higher when he holds a college degree than not.

> Chances

> Successful

> Sounds subjective.

...mmm no. Sounds statistical.

Debate challenge?

Not really. You can go to Harvard and Yale and pass at the top of your class and it wont mean a thing if there isn't any jobs on there market. Trade School, depending on the field, could ripe better fruits. You dont need $100,000 salary to be comfort.

It's called not being fucktarded with your money.

Debates are usually performed on issues that can't be easily answered with a cursory google search. As the scope of my argument is that college graduates make more money on average than non-college graduates I'll refer you to this link: http://www.bls.gov...

I agree.

: Also bear in mind that unemployment among non-college graduates is higher, so coupled with the lower wages, to laugh at people who consider college the most effective and reliable route to an economically comfortable future is pretty darn silly.... and that's the extent to which I plan on arguing here.



Misleading. If I am a plumber, I may not make as much as a PhD, but I sure as hell make enough to live[thrive] on. Can you give me a list that doesn't inculde High School Drop Outs?

At 10/8/2013 4:56:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:40:29 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
You dont need $100,000 salary to be comfort.

You're right; you need at least a few times that amount.

Where the FVCK do you...Wait, your trolling.

At 10/8/2013 4:55:01 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:48:15 PM, Chrysippus wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:40:29 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:34:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:33:39 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:32:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 10/7/2013 6:43:51 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
I laugh at people who think you need to go to a major college to be successful in life.

Well that's a pretty stupid source of amusement... considering that one's chances of living a comfortable life (economically) are much higher when he holds a college degree than not.

> Chances

> Successful

> Sounds subjective.

...mmm no. Sounds statistical.

Debate challenge?

Not really. You can go to Harvard and Yale and pass at the top of your class and it wont mean a thing if there isn't any jobs on there market. Trade School, depending on the field, could ripe better fruits.

So you can. Averages mean absolutely nothing to the statistical outliers.

What Outliers?

Basic statistics, friend. If you take any random sample of Harvard graduates, and graph their incomes, you'll get quite a range of results. There may be the occasional billionaire; there will be lots of people earning, say, 100-800K; and there may be the occasional delinquent who graduated with a serious drug problem, got into a fight with his pusher, and ended up alone and friendless in the Federal Pen.

So, you've got a lot of data points in the middle of the range, and a few high above and a few far below. Those points that are far outside the majority? Statistical outliers.

Ok. But thats not the point Im making.

At 10/8/2013 4:58:48 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:56:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:40:29 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
You dont need $100,000 salary to be comfort.

You're right; you need at least a few times that amount.

Where the FVCK do you...Wait, your trolling.

No. 100k/year isn't a lot of money. It's a decent amount if you want a decent life, but if you want to live in comfort, or at least by my definition of comfort, multiply that number by anything >3

At 10/8/2013 5:32:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:58:48 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:56:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 10/8/2013 4:40:29 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
You dont need $100,000 salary to be comfort.

You're right; you need at least a few times that amount.

Where the FVCK do you...Wait, your trolling.

No. 100k/year isn't a lot of money. It's a decent amount if you want a decent life, but if you want to live in comfort, or at least by my definition of comfort, multiply that number by anything >3

You live in Hawaii? lel.