StatlyDude

Why didn't you just do bachelor's in EE if you need a job?

If you are a top soccer player at age 24, you could make many millions ... Look at Messie, Rooney, etc. at today's game ... Even if you were in the top 1000 soccer players in the world, you'd make good money ... But if you are a top mathematician at age 24, you might just get a tenured position, and keep publishing or perish. It's just another silly rant, but isn't it depressing that you won't make much money even if you WERE extraordinarily good at math? Please, you could become a great trader, or a hedge fund manger even if you didn't know math beyond calculus. Warren Buffet made billions in the markets even though he didn't know advanced math.

You had a good GPA in UG, and even TA'ed accounting. So what types of jobs have you tried? What led you to decide that the working world is not for you? You know that there are few jobs in academia and the pay is much less than what you could earn in business, so what made you decide to turn to math after all your business education and experience?

Congratulations on passing 3 exams already. You pursued an actuarial career and even passed 3 exams, you have a great GPA ... could you share with us why you're pursuing grad school? You tried an actuarial position and didn't like it?

I wonder if those who completed their PH.D's in Stat like their work. People often fall into accounting, engineering, law, etc. because they can't figure out what else to do, and they become disillusioned with their work. Perhaps some people go into stat grad schools because they don't know what else to do with their math background, etc. So how's the life after the grad school, is it similar to what you imagined it would be like?

Is this true? I think very few people really have the brainpower for math, but stat is pretty challenging and useful ... Is stats that boring? I think you must learn measure theory before you even start learning stat, so stats must be worthwhile challenge and a practical skill, too.

So you think that, an elementary, computational LA class using Anton is enough for Stat? We actually did some proofs and I got an A, but I may forget even that basic stuff if I don't do further study of LA. Again, I don't need to bother with Hoffman-Kunze, Halmos, Shilov and/or Friedberg stuff? Besides, I heard that LA is important in quantum mechanics, and I have some side interested in physics. In a sense, I feel like I could learn the calc-based probability on my own even though it won't be easy. I'm a post-bacc and I pay $1000 for every university-level course I take. I might set aside that $1000 for measured-based probability course after I take the first-semetser Measure Theory course. What you've told me is very different from what I've heard so far, I want to make sure. What I may do is take the calc-based probability and study the advaced linear algebra on my own. What do you think?

I tend to think that math should be your last choice because 1) you didn't do well in math in UG. You have a high GPA in the MS program but grading is more generous at the graduate level; 2) job market for math ph.d. is tough. Universities used to pay about $60k/yr to assistant professors-assuming you even get to that level in the next 10 years- but these days, they can hire Indian students at $30k. By the time you're looking for a job in math, the salaries might be even lower.; 3) If you have the brainpower to do math, stat would be easier and more marketable.

I just took an elementary Linear Algebra class using the Anton textbook. Next semester I may take an Advanced Linear Algebra class using Friedberg, et. al. (proof-based LA). I may take this course because I heard that Linear Algebra is used extensively in Stat, and I would like to be prepared for grad program in stat. On the other hand, I could take Probabilily (calc-based) to prepare for the actuarial exam P. I think I could study the Probability on my own, but having a class might be better. Anyway, how important really is Linear Algebra for stat? Is it important just for the ph.d., or master's programs also? What if I just want to be an actuary and forget stat grad school, would I still need advanced linear algebra for actuarial work?

From what I've read about math research, my impression is that math researchers focus on one of the thousands of hyper-specialized subfields that only a handful other people in the world care about. If it's a pure math subfield, there may not be any application whatsoever outside of the academia (I understand that pure mathematicians don't care about the utility of their work.) and the chance of most math grad student landing tenured professorship is very small, I think. (Attrition rate at math ph.d. programs is 80%, I've read.) So why put in all that difficult work just to find yourself long-term unemployed and even worse, unemployable in the eyes of the ordinary mortals? In the meantime, you'd see a bunch of mediocre geeks making six and seven-figure income as physicians, Big 4 CPA's, etc. If you're an applied type, why not try Statistics, Economics, Finance, etc. I'm looking at Stat personally, but you with the strong UG math background can do a ph.d. in econ or finance and have much better job prospects. You will use advanced math like analysis, topology, etc. in your economic or financial research, and contribute to the society as well as have a chance at making lucrative discoveries. I admire the billionaire hedge-fund founder, James Simons, who actually is a great mathematician and a successful individual. Don't follow in the footsteps of Abel, Riemann, Galois, Cantor, De Moivre, Erdos, Godel, Turing, Grothendieck, Kaczynski, Perelman, Nash, et al. Those folks were born geniuses and yet ended up living and dying in poverty and/or depression, mental illness, isolation, etc. No point spending all that time in grad school just to live in the wilderness with the brutes.

I don't think there are many job opportunities for math ph.d.'s or science ph.d.'s in general. If you want a job, you should just study for actuarial exams or become a computer programmer. I think math at the grad level is so specialized that there are thousands of subspecialties you can choose from. But if you want a job, etc., you should just find something after UG. It's hard to find jobs with a ph.d.: http://www.nocklebeast.net/Links/native/usnews.html Not to discourage you, but many math/science people are not practical. Many famous mathematicians in history lived and died in abject poverty, just like most artists who pursued their passions. I'm not trying to be mean, but you might see a psychiatrist for a possible Asperger's. So many math-types led miserable lives, Unabomber Kaczynski, Living-with-Mother Perelman, Beautiful Mind Nash, Fuck-the-World Grothendieck, the most recent examples, weirdo's and misfits all .... Riemann, Cantor, de Moivre, Abel, etc., were all great mathematicians who lived and died in misery and poverty. Don't join their ranks. Godel, Turing, etc. were also super-weirdo's, ultra-misfits.

Thanks, Statsguy and hubris. I'll look at the courses you mentioned.

If you have a strong UG background in math, you can go into Ph.D. programs in math, stat, or economics, among others. Aside from your passion about one of those areas, what is the most sought-after degree by employers? I suspect that econ ph.d.'s would do best in the job market, what's the reality?

"Also, you should be able to pick up an MS in Stats in 2 years, you may want to look into that. Again, another plus on the application." I think the most efficient approach would be to take the bare-essential pre-req's in one year, then move to a master's program. The University of Houston has an MS in math with a stat focus. What would be the bare essential UG classes to apply to a master's in stat? I would think: Linear, Intermediate and Vector Analyses, Intro. Stat (Calc-based), and Probability. I suspect that I can take Real Analysis at the MS-level. What do you think?

U of H is the best I can do. I received financial aid for my first UG at Penn, but if I want to take UG classes at low cost now (I have to pay full-freight for a second bachelor's program), I'll do it at U of H because the tuition is among the lowest in Texas for in-state students. Plus, I don't want to move and incur relocation cost just to take some UG classes at someplace more selective; if I have to pack up and move, it'll be for the grad school. Frankly, I was not impressed with the UG classes or the caliber of the students at Penn (Some of the professors and grad TA's were making obvious mistakes, even in intro. math and physics classes.); I think many brand-name schools charging high tuition are a scam. I hope I could still get into a top 30 program if I do well at the U of H: as long as I can come out at the end with a pretty decent job I'll be content, I'm not trying to become the most brilliant statistician of our time.

Also, I may take some of the UG-level math classes, especially the CS ones, from a community college (to minimize the financial cost); do grad schools frown upon CC classes?

I don't have an UG math or stat background. I have a business degree from the Wharton School (Penn), I only took up to Calc III and 2 semesters of business statistics. So I plan to enroll in in UG math program to take math, stat and CS classes to prepare for grad school. I have already decided that the following are essential (these are from the University of Houston course catalogue): vector analysis, intermediate analysis, linear algebra, stat for science, C programming, diff eq., adv. multivariate calc, discrete, applied probability, CS I These I plan to take in the first year; for the second year I will take at least the following: Real analysis (2 sem.), Mathematical statistics (2 sem.), CS 2, C++, Data Structures, Organization of computer programming. Some of the optional courses are: Abstract, Topology, Complex analysis, Numerical analysis, PDE (1 or 2 sem. sequence), Stochastic processes, Nonlinear/Chaos, computer architecture. Which among the optional courses should I take before a ph.d. program? I would rather take those classes in a funded ph.d. program if I could get into one. I plan to shoot for 4.0 GPA. (I got A's on all the math classes I took in UG.) I haven't taken the GRE, but recently I took the SAT again as an older person: 800 math, 740 reading.

On PHD.org, I saw the following job placement rates for some stat ph.d. programs: Texas A & M (70%), Penn (67%), UIUC (70%), Penn State (72%), Chapel Hill (76%) ... These are highly ranked programs, yet the placement rates hover around 70%, why are they so low? UT Dallas, apparently is a low-ranked program, yet the placement rates is 92% and median time to completion is 3.9 years, one of the shortest. If I were to choose among these programs, I would prefer the UT Dallas because obtaining a job and completing the program within reasonable time are the most important factors. But I'm sure the rankings are important, too. How should I interpret these data? Why are some of you anxious to attend programs with low placement rates? Also, isn't the starting salary for ph.d. stat around $70k? That doesn't seem very high considering the amount of time invested: top UG's get more than that in engineering, consulting etc. right out of college. Do most ph.d. candidates care about high salary or only about intellectual satisfaction?

In the case of the actuary applying to Ph.D. programs now, what did he dislike about the actuarial field? Also, I happen to be older than most candidates here: if you were 35 now, would you definitely prefer the immediate earnings from an actuarial position? Would 35 be too old an age to start a Ph.D. program? If you don't mind, could you give the rough ranking of your program and your rough stats (GPA, UG major, etc.)?

I'm interested in getting into a stat grad program, starting with a master's and eventually completing a ph.d.; I'm sure a ph.d. in stat would be pretty marketable. At the same time, I wonder if becoming a full-time actuary might have its own advantages: not having to spend money and time in more schooling, mental challenges of its own such as studying for rigorous exams, etc., making decent salary and even six-figures after passing several exams. If you're in a stat ph.d. program, I'm sure you have the brains to pass a few actuarial exams. So why did you choose graduate school over an actuarial career? Have any of you ever considered the actuarial path or worked at actuarial firms? If so, how was the experience?