Thinking about a second ph.d.

Post Reply New Topic

Background info about myself: I am 30 years old. I was 18 when I started college. I spent in college 3 years, pursuing double major in physics and math. Thus, I got my BA in 21. Then I spent 3 more years doing Master's, in Physics. So I got my masters in 24. Then finally I spent 5 more years doing ph.d. So I got ph.d. at 28. If I count both 3 years towards masters and 5 years towards ph.d., I have spent 8 years in graduate school, which is bad since usually people spend 5-6 years. Right now I am now pursuing my post doc in Raman Research Institute, India. My appointment is 2009 -- 2011.

Anyway, from time to time I am considering getting back in graduate school and getting another ph.d., in math. I actually considered it before I ever started a post doc. I was worried that if I count the three years I spent doing masters, then it took me 8 years to get ph.d. which is bad. But if I go and get another ph.d. in math, and hurry up and make it within 3 years, then I would have spent 8+3=11 years for two ph.d.-s, which is 5.5 years per ph.d. which is not that bad.

I guess right now that would not work since now I started my post doc which takes 2 years, so then it would be 8+2+3=13 years, which is 6.5 years per ph.d. But still may be the "good" part about having two ph.d.-s make up for the "bad" part about taking such a long time?

Anyway, there is a completely different factor that makes me want to do that. I guess I am worried that I am not a competitive candidate for a post doc (I applied to a number of places before and India was the only thing I got), so perhaps I would have better luck getting into graduate school which is not as competitive. Besides, in graduate school I will probably find my way better since it is more structured and I would have an "advisor" to guide me, while as a post doc I am pretty much left on my own.

Finally there is that worry that being a PROFESSOR is even more competitive: I heard that at oen school there was one place and 300 candidates per position. But then the question is: why do I WANT to be a professor? The answer is that I need to make money; so if I am not a professor I would have to do some other job, and that job would take time away from the research that I would be doing on my "spare time". Well, if I will be graduate student then I would be payed, like most grad students are. Of course I would be payed a lot less than professors, but being rich has never been my dream. I just want to be albe to do research all day long without having to do non-research job. Well, being in grad school takes care of it. So, now that I have ph.d. in physics, I can go get one in math. And after that I can go get one in philosophy. Each time I will pursue my interests: I am interested in interpretaiton of quantum mechanics. So this can be either "physics" or "math" (i.e. mathematical physics) or "philosophy" (i.e. philosophy of physics). So I will get three ph.d.-s AND will be able to keep doign my research without getitng a job.

But I guess I am a bit skeptical about it, mostly because usually people don't do that, so there has to be a reason why not. This seem strange: if it is so rare to have multiple ph.d.-s, it should look prestigious, and if it does, why don't everyone want it? So may be there is something bad about it that I am not aware of. Anyway please let me know what you think.

What sort of physical field?

I think many people don't get multiple doctorates because of the expense in time and money. They get tired of school and want to "get on with their lives." There's also the factor that one doesn't need to have doctorates in multiple subjects in order to work in a multi-disciplinary manner in multiple fields. Take, for example, Dr. Jared Diamond (author of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" smong other books). His doctorate is in physiology and he currently works as professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. But his research and writing delves deeply into the fields of physiology, biophysics, ornithology, environmentalism, ecology, geography, evolutionary biology, and anthropology. Many other fields such as economics and history have strong secondary contributions to his work.

An academic is not strictly limited to the field in which s/he studied because it's assumed that if a person as a doctorate in one subject they have developed the skills and discipline to be able to self-educate in a number of other subjects. Autodidacts (the self-taught) are not appreciated in our culture but autodidacts who hold a doctorate in anything are treated rather well. The single doctorate carries a lot of weight. I, myself, chose to go into political science expressly because I would have to study in many different fields. To be a good political scientist, one needs to understand economics, history, psychology, sociology, science, and more. I knew I would enjoy a field that requires me to have broad knowledge (since I was one of those children who declared their life goal to be "to know everything" when I was very small. It made grown-ups laugh, but it's never stopped being a life goal, even though I realize it's unobtainable.)

As for multiple doctorates, though, there are more and more people who are pursuing that course. Some are skeptical that those who follow this course are "hiding from the real world." A person with one doctorate and life accomplishments will almost always be more highly considered than someone with two doctorates and no accomplishments. There comes a point when the resume or curriculum vita is more important than the educational crediential. But multiple doctorates can lead to valuable niche specialization. For example, Dr. Stacey Ake got a doctorate in molecular biology and followed it with a doctorate in philosophy and is now a strong voice in the study of the intersection between religion and science. That's something that potential employers would be looking for: how do all your doctorates work together? What is your apparent aim in collecting degrees? The more you can show that your degrees work together to construct some special niche of knowledge and research, the better off you'll be with multiple degrees.

There's also degree inflation to consider. To have the relative income and lifestyle that a blue-collar worker had in 1970, today's worker needs a bachelor's degree. Similarly, what a bachelor's degree used to get you 30-40 years ago requires a master's or doctorate today. Degree inflation has gotten to the point where some academics (particularly at the University of Chicago) have discussed a degree (potentially called the chancelorette degree) that would be the next step after a doctorate! Multiple doctorates can help a person become more marketable in these days of degree inflation.

Multiple doctorates are more common in other countries as well. In the Netherlands, a person with multiple doctorates is "Dr.mult. John Smith" and in Germany, someone with two doctorates would be "Dr. Dr. John Smith". There are enough multiple doctorates in those countries that special forms of address have developed to recognize them. Multiple doctorates are also more common in the U.S. among those who start with a professional degree (e.g. M.D., J.D.) and then add a research degree (Ph.D) and go into teaching. There's even a nickname for the doctor who earns an MD and adds a PhD: "muddfudd."

So . . . all this is a long way of saying, "it depends." What do you want to do with your degrees? How do you expect them to fit together? That's probably the first question to be asking yourself.

Roman, are you from India originally?

I studied mathematics at university (in the UK), and a while back I googled a guy who'd been one of the star students on my course. It turned out he's doing a second PhD (first one was in maths, second one in stats). I can only assume he had trouble finding postdoc positions, and was reluctant to get a regular job (which I can certainly understand). It made me wonder how he afforded it, and whether or not already having a PhD affects a person's chances of getting funding for a second one.

Another of the star students from my course became a lecturer in finance. My guess is that is a less competitive area for postdoc work than pure maths (because most people who get PhDs in financial maths would go on to work as quants and earn shedloads of money).

No. I am originally from Russia. I came to USA in 1994, when I was 14. I lived in USA ever since, and the only reason I moved to India is a post doc position there. I have no Indian roots at all. I am White and genetically I am Jewish, not Indian. The only reason I am in India is a post doc, thats it.

Why India? Simple. I applied all over the world, and the post doc in India was the only one I was able to get. The reason I got there is that my research as a graduate student was in the area of quantum gravity known as "causal set theory", and in India there is one woman who works in the field who knows my former thesis advisor personally. The other place where I was invited to the interview was in Canada. Again, it was because the advisor knew personally one of the professors there. But in Canada I failed the interview because the interview was not structured, they just let me visit for a week, and I didn't know how to socialize with people. So that left India to be my only option.

Now, once I came to India I managed to completely allienate the professor who invited me there, so basically I cut my one and only bridge. Now, as long as I am there it is okay, since according to the policy of that institute, post docs are supposed to work independently and are not "under" anyone. But the problem is that when it comes to looking for a new post doc, I am not sure how I can get one. I mean, based on my experience the first time around the only thign I was able to get was through personal connections of my former thesis advisor. He only had two connectoins: Canada and India. So obviously the Indian bridge is ruined. I assume I can apply to Canada again, but that place is competitive.

The good thing is that the advisor in USA is very sympathetic about my problems since he knwos it is due to Asperger and he is very much on my side. But there are very few things he can do. I actually asked him can he simply take me as a post doc himself. He said he definitely would IF he had a financial support. But unfortunately he had trouble getting one: he can't even pay his own graduate students, and they are being payed by teaching or some other means independent of him. So he said he will TRY to get a support, just like he tries every year, and IF he will get one he will take me. But he said not to expect much since he is trying every year and so far he is failing.

The other option he suggested is his fellow professor who actually has a support and is looking for graduate students. But he said I have very little chance with that option because his research is very different from mine. Finally the other thing he suggested is his former student who is a professor at some small school. But so far he haven't spoken to that student. He simply assumes that since he is his former student he might be more willing to help, but of course there is no guarantee.

So I guess that is mainly why I want to go back to graduate school. I didn't need any personal connections to be admitted there. Back when I was applying to graduate schools, I never had to apply anywhere outside USA, and I been admitted to like 2 or 3 places. But now I applied all over the world and all I got was India. But of course it is also possible that my chances of going to grad school might be smaller now than before since they would wonder why do I want to go there again, after already having ph.d. But I don't know that one way or the other. That is something I would like to ask you guys if any of you know more about it than I do.

I guess part of it though is that if I apply to graduate school I apply to a department, so any given school is a fair game. On the other hand if I apply to a post doc, I apply to a research group, not a department. So for example, Syracuse University has plenty of research in my interest. But the research group I am interested in did not offer any post doc posititons; the only post doc posititon that was offered was by a group I am NOT interested in. So thats why i didn't even apply, despite the fact that I would LOVE to be there.

If I apply to graduate school, on the other hand, I would not have that limitation. But at the same time, I would have another limitations: since now I want to apply to math departments, while I still want to do physics, I would be limitted to the ones that have some mathematical physicists, and there aren't many of them. Besides, applications to grad schools actually cost money, while the ones to post doc positions are free. So for that reason when I was applying to graduate school I only applied to 10 places or so, which is probably a lot LESS than the number of places I was applying for a post doc. So may be I shouldn't even blame the number of options. May be the ENTIRE thing is that grad schools are less competitive. And my question now is whehter or not that is still the case if I am trying to go to graduate school AFTER getting a ph.d. and having been postdoc; perhaps they would give priority to more normal-looking applicants?



Actually one doesn't have to "afford" a degree. It is the opposite: when I was doing ph.d. I was payed $1600 a month just for teaching. And that is NOT much work: only TA 1 hour per week and then grade papers that you can go through in 2 or 3 hours per week. Basically that is the way they are helping you out so that you can focus on research without looking for jobs.

In my case I screwed it up because they were asking me to put grades on spread sheet and I was too lazy to learn the way spreadshit works and was putting it on paper. So I lost my TA-ship over that and my mom had to pay my way. That is one thing I feel really bad about. So I want to make money MYSELF (either thorugh grad school or post doc) and pay my mom back. Unfortunately in India I only make $360 a month, and I came here with a huge American credit card loan that again my mom had to pay. So I want to go some place in the West so that I can earn money and make up for everything my mom was paying so far. So, given my bad luck with post doc position in the West, I hope to go to graduate school there and make money that way.

It used to be quantum gravity, now I am leaning more towards foundations of quantum mechanics.

Not at my university.

I guess if one looks at the surface then yes I can argue that math and physics degree "work together". Since my area of interest is mathematical physics, I need to know more math than most physicists and more physics than most mathematicians, so getting two ph.d.-s would give me a unique perspective.

However, if one looks a little bit deeper, one will find that when I was doing my physics ph.d., my work was very independent (and I managed to get a very flexible advisors), so I was being just as mathematical as I wanted to be. So, I don't expect that my work in math department under one of the mathematical physicists will be any closer to math than what I already done. I basically am trying to buy more time by doing the same kind of work while CALLING it differently (first I called it physics and now I will call it math). Now since no one is psychic I can always lie, but still if they look into the papers I wrote it would become more or less evident.

Now don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying I plan to do second ph.d. on the same topic. My research topic has already changed: I did my ph.d. on causal sets and now I work on interpretation of quantum mechanics. So I plan my topic for second ph.d. to be the latter, not the former. What I do say, however, is that while topics are different, both are considered "mathematical physics", and the latter topic is not any closer to math then the former one is, so thats why the fact that my first ph.d. was in physics and second one would be in math is nothing more then formality.

On the other hand, my other idea of doing a degree in philosophy WOULD in fact give me the kind of interplay you are talking about. My interest in physics has always been the one of a philosopher. But, at the same time, in the pursuit of my "philosophical" interest I want to write equations, not just words. After all words don't really prove anything. But equations will show that here is one way that one of my philosophical theories can work. But at the same time it leans towars philosophy since the subject of my equations is something we can never verify (I am talking about scales much smaller than elementary particles) so it is more off interest to philosophers than physicists. So I guess that is kidn of unique: I want to write more equations than most philosophers, and at the same time I want to explore something more philosophical than physicists would ever be interested in.

But I guess I am not ready to go to philosophy department, because if i do then my line of research WILL have to change. And it is quite possible that I would not have an option of working on equations while pursuing my degree. Yes I can argue that AFTER the degree I will have a unique perspective on things and do all these wonderful things with equations, but I don't want to miss the years that it would take to get the degree. Now, there might be some remote possibilities of doing equations while I am in philosophy department. I have heard that in university of Pittsburgh there are some philosophers that do equations. But I have to research whether it is true or not, and if so, to what extend. If they just write one equation per 100 pages of words that won't make me happy.

The other thing is that philosophy is looked down upon in math or physics community, while math is not. So I feel that getting math ph.d. will "look" better, at least on a level of seeing the word "math". For that reason if I do want to go to grad school I am almost certain that my second ph.d. will be in math; the philosophy is something I want to do for my third ph.d. if after getting a second one I will still want to extend my time as a graduate student.

Putting math, philosophy and everything else aside, the ultimate dilemma is this: in order to get the "interplay" you are talking about (and being honest about it), I have to change my research, at least to some extend. But, at the same time, I am happy with what I am doing now and don't want it to change! So, regardless of the department I go to, simple logic says that either I will change my research, or I won't. If I will change it, then my interests will be sacrificed. If I won't change it, then there won't be any "interplay" that you are talking about.

Once again, I would like to make it clear that I do NOT plan to do second ph.d. on the same topic. My research topic had changed on its own (regardless of my plans of going or not going to grad school again): I used to do causal sets and now I am doing interpretation of quantum mechanics. What I do want to say, is that both topics are in the middle between math and physics, so making a point of calling the first topic physics and the second topic math is nothing more than a formality, meant to extend my time as a graduate student.

But I guess from my perspective there is nothing wrong with doing exactly what I am doing and just going to graduate school for the sake of a piece of paper. After all, why did I get my first ph.d.? I could have been teaching myself and doing the research independently. So, clearly, the reason for donig first ph.d. is a piece of paper. And don't get me wrong -- yes I AM interested in physics, it is the most interesting thing in the entire world and has been since I was 9. But the question is NOT why I am doing physics; the question is why did I decide to get ph.d. in physics AS OPPOSED TO just doing it at home. Well, the answer to THAT question (and that question alone) is that I wanted a piece of paper. So if it is okay to get first ph.d. for the sake of a piece of paper, then why not do the same for the second one?

Well the answer to that is obviously that other people might find first piece of paper a lot more important then the second one. Well, thats why I made this post where I am asking just how would other people see it, since that is ultimately what I want to know.



If degree inflation was a PRO factor as far as multiple doctorates are concerned, wouldn't more people get them?



The fact that it became an official title, does it mean it is more "typical"? In other words, is there any prestige that goes with "dr dr" that doesn't go with simple "dr", or is it about the same? I guess I am asking this because I want to have two doctorates to "make up" for the fact that I spent 8 years getting the first one which looks bad. So if "dr dr" is the same as "dr" then it won't make up for anything. But on the other hand if "dr dr" is a huge prestigeous title (like "president" or "noble prize winner") then yes it would.

The other question: when ppl get multiple doctorates, do they pursue them at the same time or in sequence? For example in America you can be "double major" to do BA, but not ph.d. Are you saying in Europe people have "double majors" for ph.d.? If so, then getting it in sequence will NOT look good, since it means I will spend at least twice more time on it then most. But if they get it in sequence, just like me, that is a lot better.



My eventual goal is to become a professor. But what worries me is competition. I have heard that in USA there was one professor opening and 300 candidates. I don't know how come no one is worried about it.

Last edited by Roman on 24 Jun 2010, 3:25 am, edited 3 times in total.

May be you are thinking about undergrad, in this case yes it costs money. But in graduate school they are paying you for being a TA (something undergrads are not qualified to do).

You may have already considered this (I only read the first post as it's 4am and I'm tired, lol), but anyways...there are some places that offer PhDs in interdisciplinary studies. Maybe you could do an interdisciplinary PhD in philosophy and math? Personally, I probably wouldn't want to do a second PhD, but that's just me. Also I'm just an undergrad and don't know what doing a PhD is like. If you do go on to do a second, I think going on to philosophy would allow you to be more rounded.

*edit* here's a list of colleges that offer the degree
http://www.myplan.com/majors/colleges-t ... &Submit=Go!

I never heard of interdisciplinary degrees before, so I will look into that and let you know what I think.

By the way I see you are in MS. Are you going to school at the University of Missisippi? That is where my former thesis advisor (Luca Bombelli) is! I did my ph.d. in Michigan, but I got an advisor from outside of the university and made occasional one-week-visits to work with him. So who knows, may be you saw me in caffeteria, LOL. By the way do you know Luca Bombelli from physics department? Have you taken any of his classes by any chance?

No, I am working on my doctorate and we have to pay tuition up to the last year when we are eligible for a one-year tuition waiver (but not everyone gets one.) We don't make money from teaching until after we go through required pedagogy classes, so the first year there is no income at all from doctorate work (and never any income from master's work) and after going through the classes, we are eligible to teach classes but we have to teach the entire class, not just TA it, and we don't get paid so much as $1600/month to do it.

These things vary from university to university so in some places everything is paid for and in other places the costs of school are paid for but you still have to find some way to pay rent, utilities, food, etc. but there isn't enough time left over after school to get a job. And some universities forbid graduate students from getting an outside job at all.

This is one big reason why people don't do more than one doctorate - it's expensive, and a long time to keep living in poverty. And graudate schools that only accept 5% of applicants will often reject someone who already has one doctorate in favor of accepting someone else who doesn't have any doctorates yet, so it can be difficult to get into the program you want for a second doctorate.

It will count against you. No one really cares that it took 8 years to get a doctorate. They don't really pay any attention to that. But they will really care if it looks like you were getting extra doctorates so you could "hide from the real world." That looks really bad.



And if you don't change it and create that interplay, you will be wasting your time getting another doctorate. It will just look bad to future employers. If you want to keep doing the kind of research you're doing now, you have to move to the world of work and leave the world of studies. If you take another doctorate to stay in the safe world of studies, you might as well just keep taking doctorate after doctorate for the rest of your life because the longer you put off that transition from student to worker the harder it will be to make.



Which will look worse than having spent eight years as a graduate student in the first place. People will see right through it and understand it as a ploy to remain a student longer than necessary. If you're jsut going to keep following the same lines of research you've been doing, and you're done with the degree, it's time to move on.



From your perspective, no. From your future employer's perspective, yes.



That first piece of paper opened doors to you. If you choose not to walk through those doors and instead get a second piece of paper that you don't really need and that doesn't really change the focus or reality of your work, then you are shooting yourself in the foot.



Yes, that's what I was trying to communicate in my original response, since I dind't fully know your motivations for seeking a second doctorate. That second piece of paper will be viewed very differently if you are just getting it to prolong your time in the safe role of student.



No, because most people aren't willing to live in poverty for more years. People who get multiple doctorates are usually people who are very driven to follow a particular academic vision. Most people will not get a second doctorate just to hide out in school because they are ready to increase their income and go out into the world of work.



People are qutie worried about it. But they don't focus on it because it is a negative. All one can do is their best and hope that they are the one chosen.

I would suggest not getting another doctorate, simply because you don't seem to need it for anything in particular. You can enter academia, or you can look for a governmental or private position that focuses on research. Working toward a second doctorate will simply detract from your capacity to do research, and that is what makes you academically marketable, not the number of doctorates you've earned.

Just to clarify, doing the doctorate won't "detract me from research" since research is what dissertation is supposed to consist of.

I am not sure about the "governmental or privite positions" that you are talking about. My work is deeply theoretical, and has no practical implications. So the only options I can think of are the ones at the university (graduate student, post doc, professor, etc). Or are you thinking of some other options that I haven't considered? If so, that would be helpful.

It depends on your field. Theoretical work is not, in and of itself, useless outside of academia. However, it is highly specialized in most fields. Your best option would be to look at private organizations that present at professional conferences you have attended in your field. They will often hold research grants and you might be able to find a niche position there, working on the grants they hold.

As for your dissertation not distracting you, it won't, to the extent that it will be a research project, but dissertations tend to move more slowly than do personal research projects, and typically are not immediately transferable into publications (at least in my field).