Getting a scientific education

[Tampitump]

For the past few years I have wanted to pursue a scientific education, specifically in neuroscience. But I know that there are immense problems that I currently face (and will face) in pursuing this goal.

 

The first problem is my terrible academic past. I barely passed high school. After high school, I went to a small, local, four-year university where I failed out. I got placed on academic suspension because I spent three years there, failed everything, and never made it beyond freshman status. I spent four years in the workforce before I concluded that i wanted education, and decided to go back to college. Actually, I had acquired the desire to pursue a science education a couple of years before going back. Deciding to go to community college was the first step towards this goal.

 

I'm currently a sophomore in community college majoring in computer science. I'm set to transfer to my state's flagship next fall (if all works out). My cumulative GPA at my current CC is 3.74, but when combined with the GPA from my former college, it is still horrendous. If I'm getting a "scientist's" education, this means a PhD program. I don't want to go to a two-bit school for this. I doubt any serious schools will touch me in light of my past failures. I'm looking at schools like Vanderbilt, Carnegie Mellon, and Duke for the PhD.

 

The other problem is that I understand that these types of careers like neuroscience are pretty spotty, and only really pan out for the brightest and most accomplished. I doubt a PhD in neuroscience would even qualify me for a job a Books a Million. It's either you succeed mightily, or you make it nowhere. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, correct me.

 

What should I do? Give it up? Pursue it? I'm really just a kid in his bedroom dreaming at this present moment.

[iNow]

Never give up.

[Tampitump]

Never give up.

Not helpful. Lol

[Prometheus]

I started late in academia. Left school with average GCSEs and no A-levels (not sure what the US equivalents are) and a couple of drug habits to kick. A career in nursing saved me, gave me a chance to get a degree then a masters. Wanted to change career to science so did a more pertinent masters (after 2 years of access courses) and managed to get onto a PhD. Had to work my arse off for years just to get that chance and I'm still no where near as sharp as the younger PhD. students. Certainly wasn't my intelligence that got me through; it was shear tenacity.

 

I'm sure you can do it, the only question is how much do you want it.

[blue89]

Never give up.

 

+1

 

this comment folded so as not to be of topic & has been sent to Tampitump in private mod.

 

blue 89

Edited September 5, 2016 by blue89

[Tampitump]

What do I need to do to make myself likely to be accepted into a good school's PhD program? And what good schools should I look into? I'm wanting to go private instead of public for my graduate school choice. Are there any good schools closer to the prestigious level that I might have a chance at? Please share them. Thanks.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Tampitump

[timo]

I think prestigious institutions for a PhD are usually overrated by students. Doing your PhD at a less reputable university and doing a good job at it, i.e. developing a good understanding of the field and getting good results, can probably get you quite far. Especially if you know that you want to go for a post-doc and start developing contacts outside the university during your PhD time (e.g. at conferences or by talking to visiting speakers in the seminars). This is just a side-remark, though. I am aware you didn't want to discuss your decision to aim for a prestigious university.

 

I am not super-familiar with the US university system. But I read many, many, really many threads about "my grades are bad but I absolutely have to get into a prestigious PhD program", and I have a bit of common sense. Generally speaking, I think you are in an okay position. The idea of admission is that the committee believes you will be successful in the PhD. Your story of being a bad student that suddenly found his/her passion for science is very cliché. But: Contrary to many of the other people coming along with the story you have the actual proof to back it up. You demonstrated a good performance in the recent past. That will weight higher than your bad performance in the more distant past, especially with the intermediate break and the associated life-experience you gained in that time. As long as you get the 3,0 on average (to avoid being auto-dumped before someone even reads you application) I think you are in a better shape than your total average suggests.

 

Two caveats:

1) I have not understood the concept of "community colleges" so far, so I don't know to what extent that is a disadvantage to <whatever the alternative of a non-community college is called>.

2) I have doubts to what extent a computer science degree prepares you for a neuroscience PhD program. You probably want to approach it from the direction of computational neuroscience, not the biological direction.

 

Summary: Don't give up, yet

Edited September 5, 2016 by timo

[MigL]

I don't personally have a post-grad degree, but of all the scientists I am familiar with ( mostly physicists ), there are only a couple that I know where their PhD was done.

Their reputations are built on the work they've done, not the school where they did their research.

A great PhD thesis done at a mediocre school will go a lot farther than a mediocre thesis done at a great school.

IOW even if you don't get into a 'prestigious' school, don't give up !

( that seems to be the recurring sentiment )

 

As to your second problem...

Do you want a PhD in neuroscience so you can get a cushy job, or do you want to learn and explore the field just for the sake of learning ( even if you end up driving a cab ) ?

[Tampitump]

Do you want a PhD in neuroscience so you can get a cushy job, or do you want to learn and explore the field just for the sake of learning ( even if you end up driving a cab ) ?

Both. I want financial security. I always thought that was a fucking dumb ass question for people to ask honestly. Of course I want to make good money and have a good life. I can want that whilst still being sincere about the science. No offense.

I think prestigious institutions for a PhD are usually overrated by students.

Most of the average or less prstigious schools don't even offer Phd programs for neuroscience. My state's flagship doesn't. I don't want to go to a two-bit college for this. It's not like I'm aiming for Harvard or Stanford or Princeton or Yale or MIT. I'm looking at schools with SOME prestige, that often produce quality scientists, but I don't care to have the Havard level. Schools like Carnegie Mellon, William and Mary, Vanderbilt, Duke, UC/LA/Berkeley/Irvine/etc.. All of these are solid schools that are every bit the quality of the above mentioned ivies, but might perhaps be more realistic for me to gain entrance to (at least some of them).

 

Sorry for the offensive language MigL

Edited September 6, 2016 by Tampitump

[Ophiolite]

Never give up.

Contrary to Tampitup's view that this , while amusing, was not helpful, I make this observation. The only common feature I see in success in business, sport, or life in general is persistence.

[CharonY]

Both. I want financial security. I always thought that was a fucking dumb ass question for people to ask honestly. Of course I want to make good money and have a good life. I can want that whilst still being sincere about the science. No offense.

 

It is not a dumbass question. Most people in academia are there because of interest rather than money or a good life (in terms of work-life balance). You are clearly stating that you are not one of them and that is fine. But it is important to be aware of that, which is why MigL asked.

 

Most of the average or less prstigious schools don't even offer Phd programs for neuroscience. My state's flagship doesn't.

 

Neuroscience is clearly not a prestigious field. I known neuroscientists which work in comparatively low-ranked universities how are decently funded. However, the question is why neuroscience, what career path outside academia are you looking into?

Also you should note that quality scientists are not produced by the institution, they are produced within specific groups. An undergrad degree does not count toward much in the scientific community and after that it is a question of whom you worked for, rather than where you worked at. But again, this is mostly relevant for science/academic careers. But since that does not seem to be your goal, the question is still what your career path is and what those people are looking for (beside networking).

[Tampitump]

Neuroscience is clearly not a prestigious field.

How so?

 

As to the career outside of academia, I'm currently majoring in computer science. My state's flagship offers minors and interdisciplinary majors with neuroscience concentrations. I figured the comp. sci. Could give me decent job prospects outside academia. I'm just spit balling in this thread really.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Tampitump

[Arete]

So, I sit on the graduate admissions committee for my department.

 

Our base requirements are set by the UC system - a minimum of a bachelor's degree, an undergraduate/graduate GPA of 3.0 or higher, a minimum GRE quantitative score of 155, and a minimum GRE analytical score of 4. Exceptions to this can be made by an individual PI, but usually aren't due to funding restrictions and an oversupply of qualified students.

 

After that, it it is down to a) the "soft" elements of the application. Does the student have a Masters degree? Research experience? Publications? Grants and Awards? b) The applicant's direction - do they have a clear idea of why they want to do a PhD and what they want to do it in? and c) The intangibles - do the statements indicate that the student would be a good "fit" for the university?

 

The money or passion question is relevant - in many fields a PhD doesn't actually increase your earning potential much, and if your primary motivation was increasing your earning potential, I'd steer you in a different direction - plus 5+ years of living on a PhD stipend would put you financially much worse off than a Bachelor's degree and 5 years of industry experience. That said, there aren't many unemployed PhD graduates, although most aren't working in academia, or their field of training.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Arete

[Tampitump]

So, I sit on the graduate admissions committee for my department.

 

Our base requirements are set by the UC system - a minimum of a bachelor's degree, an undergraduate/graduate GPA of 3.0 or higher, a minimum GRE quantitative score of 155, and a minimum GRE analytical score of 4. Exceptions to this can be made by an individual PI, but usually aren't due to funding restrictions and an oversupply of qualified students.

 

After that, it it is down to a) the "soft" elements of the application. Does the student have a Masters degree? Research experience? Publications? Grants and Awards? b) The applicant's direction - do they have a clear idea of why they want to do a PhD and what they want to do it in? and c) The intangibles - do the statements indicate that the student would be a good "fit" for the university?

 

The money or passion question is relevant - in many fields a PhD doesn't actually increase your earning potential much, and if your primary motivation was increasing your earning potential, I'd steer you in a different direction - plus 5+ years of living on a PhD stipend would put you financially much worse off than a Bachelor's degree and 5 years of industry experience. That said, there aren't many unemployed PhD graduates, although most aren't working in academia, or their field of training.

I'm sure all of that will inevitably rule me out. You have to start young being smart and accomplished, or the world doesn't allow you to.

[MigL]

There you go with the negativity again.

Cut it out !

 

The advice everyone has given you is DON"T GIVE UP.

Everyone seems to have more faith in you than you do in yourself.

You can't accomplish anything if you don't even try.

[Tampitump]

I'll be honest. I just want a PhD to have a PhD. I know that's not a "good reason", and any person in the university sphere would lecture me about that. My only answer to that is fuck you.

 

While I am genuinely interested in the brain and neuroscience, I really do want to achieve a PhD because I want to achieve a very high level of education. neuroscience would be my choice of programs. My plan is to achieve a solid background in computer science in my undergrad work, but also get involved in some neuroscience research at my state's flagship (which they do quite a bit of), and possibly minor in neuroscience. That way my prospects in the comp. sci field will be solid should the academia thing not work out. Again, I'm just speculating and talking straight out of my ass here.

 

I'm still waiting for an answer from CharionY as to how neuroscience is a non-prestigious field.

 

You can consider me like a Hitchens type off hawkish, rude, bad manners, but with a mind more interested in science.

[MigL]

So what's stopping you ?

Other than yourself.

 

And that's a perfectly valid reason for wanting a PhD.

Edited September 7, 2016 by MigL

[Tampitump]

And that's a perfectly valid reason for wanting a PhD.

Thank you.

There you go with the negativity again.

Cut it out !

My self-deprecation is often a tactic I employ to provide myself with consolation for when I fall short of other people. I tell myself I'm worthless from the beginning, I feel much less sting from failure. I used to believe much too highly in myself, only for my self-esteem to be destroyed by utter failure. The verbal disclaimers help me cope. That's not joke at all. It's also a form of self-punishment for my past faults. I'm furious at myself for being so stupid, lazy, and absent-minded in the past. I can't seem to get over it. It kills me. I have never seen my pedigree of past stupidity and failure matched by another person I've ever met.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Tampitump

[iNow]

It's annoying and tiresome and negates others perception of your various other positive traits.

[CharonY]

How so?

As to the career outside of academia, I'm currently majoring in computer science. My state's flagship offers minors and interdisciplinary majors with neuroscience concentrations. I figured the comp. sci. Could give me decent job prospects outside academia. I'm just spit balling in this thread really.

Sorry, I meant non-exclusive as the courses are no way related to prestige of the school. How would a PhD help your career ambitions? And if it doesn't the only way to invest the required effort without going insane is actually being interested in the subject.

[Arete]

I'm sure all of that will inevitably rule me out. You have to start young being smart and accomplished, or the world doesn't allow you to.

 

We have students starting PhDs in their 40s, so I don't agree that age is necessarily an impediment.

 

I'll be honest. I just want a PhD to have a PhD. I know that's not a "good reason", and any person in the university sphere would lecture me about that. My only answer to that is fuck you.

 

This, however would be a deal breaker for me.

A) A PhD is a long, sometimes arduous task that gets you to a starting point, rather than an end point. If a person doesn't have a clear idea of why they want to start that journey, then there's a good chance they won't finish it. As such, I generally carefully scrutinize a potential students motivation as a part of the application process.

 

B) If the response someone has to being questioned about their motivation to go to grad school is "F**k you" I'd say they didn't have the temperament required for a PhD program. You'll be constantly questioned throughout your scientific career, frequently rejected and often wrong. Being able to take on board criticism and modify one's position in response to it is critically important to a successful career in science - say your committee failed you at your quals two years into your program - would you tell them to "go f*** themselves" and quit, or would you improve your knowledge, revise your proposal and try again six months later? If I had any inkling that a student would do the former I wouldn't take them on.

 

As such, I'd think a bit about why you want to go to grad school, get some research experience under your belt so you know it's something that is definitely for you, and consider how your attitude might be perceived by others before applying. Best of luck.

[Tampitump]

 

We have students starting PhDs in their 40s, so I don't agree that age is necessarily an impediment.

 

 

This, however would be a deal breaker for me.

A) A PhD is a long, sometimes arduous task that gets you to a starting point, rather than an end point. If a person doesn't have a clear idea of why they want to start that journey, then there's a good chance they won't finish it. As such, I generally carefully scrutinize a potential students motivation as a part of the application process.

 

B) If the response someone has to being questioned about their motivation to go to grad school is "F**k you" I'd say they didn't have the temperament required for a PhD program. You'll be constantly questioned throughout your scientific career, frequently rejected and often wrong. Being able to take on board criticism and modify one's position in response to it is critically important to a successful career in science - say your committee failed you at your quals two years into your program - would you tell them to "go f*** themselves" and quit, or would you improve your knowledge, revise your proposal and try again six months later? If I had any inkling that a student would do the former I wouldn't take them on.

 

As such, I'd think a bit about why you want to go to grad school, get some research experience under your belt so you know it's something that is definitely for you, and consider how your attitude might be perceived by others before applying. Best of luck.

Total misrepresentation and straw man of my position.

Just because my motive for wanting a PhD is to have one doesn't mean I will not be serious or professional with my studies/career. There are plenty of people who have done PhDs just to have them. Brian May from queen is one of them.

 

I have a serious question though. How relevant does one's undergraduate degree to their chosen PhD program need to be. The reason I'm doing computer science now is to have a good foundation for job prospects. I planned on declaring neuroscience as my minor when I get to my state's flagship.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Tampitump

[CharonY]

Brian May is not a good example as he started off studying astrophysics implying that he had some interest in the subject matter. He then finished his work to obtain his degree way later. The thing is if it is your only motivation, you have to be an extremely driven individual to maintain the required work load. And according to your own account, it does not seem to be the case.

 

With regard to PhD programs, usually you have to secure an adviser. I.e. you have to demonstrate a) ability to perform research and b) should provide some evidence of applicable skills (or at least be trainable). However, depending on the institution you may also be required to have teaching duties which requires some knowledge on the subject. From that viewpoint it could be difficult to find someone to accept a candidate, unless they have a strong research pertaining to computational neuroscience or something in that direction.

 

But judging from how your position changes over a few posts you may not be certain about what you really want yourself.

Edited September 7, 2016 by CharonY

[Arete]

Total misrepresentation and straw man of my position.

 

I disagree - given this is what you said:

 

I'll be honest. I just want a PhD to have a PhD. I know that's not a "good reason", and any person in the university sphere would lecture me about that. My only answer to that is fuck you.

 

and that is what I responded to.

 

Just because my motive for wanting a PhD is to have one doesn't mean I will not be serious or professional with my studies/career.

 

Of course not. Just because someone wants to climb mount Everest so he can boast about it at dinner parties doesn't mean he won't get to the top and back down fine - but the motivation may concern his mountain guide, who is worried about how he might react if a storm hits the mountain while they are climbing.

 

Ultimately you're welcome to take my advice or leave it - just trying to provide you some perspective on how a professor who actually sits on a graduate admission committee might think and view your application.

[Tampitump]

People do phds all the time for the reasons I mentioned. Hell, some people get into phd programs only to switch departments. My current c++ professor has a phd in particle physics and decided on a whim to do his phd. He got into Vanderbilt just fine, and finished just fine.

 

You also assume I'm not going to try to pick up some undergrad research experience whle at my state's flagship. That's the whole reason I'm going to try to go there. They have a stellar and growing neuroscience research program.

 

I'd bet that a big portion of people who go for phds don't have any more ambitious or auspicious answers to these questions than I do. Who says I won't develop a love for research and academia.

 

Most people stretch the truth on their applications/resumes anyway to make it seem like they are more ambitious and experienced than they really are. As stated earlier with my c++ professor. He has a phd from one of the best schools in the world, but he doesn't strike me as someome who particularly gives a shit aboit physics in general.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Tampitump