| Topic Name: |
IB or Consulting M&A/Corporate Finance |
| Message Name: |
ummm... |
| Date Posted: |
04/12/2003 |
| In Reply To: |
I think your key comment is that you got your PhD and then went on to McK, but didn't intend to get your PhD so you could work at McK. Nothing wrong with changing your mind. I got my PhD and didn't go to McK because I didn't want to, not because I couldn't.
Did you get your PhD in 3 years after your MS, or is that after college? If it is the former, very impressive. Maybe you should have stayed in the field. If it is the latter, still pretty good. It took me 4.5 years after my MS, which was already 1.5 years below the average at the time.
Cheers,
Yabai
PS "don't work with a dick advisor", wiser words never spoken... |
| Message: |
I got the Ph.D. in four. I was invited by my professor/committee to defend at the 2.5 year mark, but wanted to hang out some more. Ended up going into another degree program ontop of/simultaneuosly with Ph.D.
I was ok at the program, but not what I would call brilliant at it. I met a few people who were. (not in my program.) I just picked an easy problem and had all the results needed within a year of work (after a year of classes.) The most gifted people end up going off and being Harvard assistant professors, I think. I never heard much about intense wealth in that field. (of course, you can be quite comfortable, but nothing like McK partner.)
I had no MS, but I did have several years of work, which helped with advisor selection/management and with problem selection.
I also went to a school/worked with an advisor who beleived that 4 years should be the norm. His candid advice to me was that I should get out in 3, because of my age.
------------
Really, I don't think spending ungodly amounts of time in the Ph.D. is very good for the person or for society. In UK for instance, 3 years is not unusual.
|
|
