Mathematics GRE

[Nebu]

Merely having a PhD program allows access to funds that would not otherwise be possible.  This is why we saw the number of PhD programs balloon in many disciplines over the past 30 years.  This is also the reason why most disciplines now experience a glut of PhD's on the job market.  We need PhD students to get adequate funding to do our research and to do the mundane data collection required for proof of concept.  You can't get any kind of research funding without a significant population of PhD's to train in the process.  A good portion of commonly available grants for sole PI's or small teams are training grants (i.e. that the majority of the funding goes to paying salaries rather than consumables and infrastructure).  Universities like large grants as they get a percentage to cover indirect costs.  Hence, universities love large training grants and will create PhD programs to obtain them.

[Goumindong]

You are trying to derive a bunch of stuff from a generic theoretical knowledge of economics and a paper-thin shred of empirical evidence.

And you're applying anecdata(not even objectively recorded anecdata) to make sweeping generalizations about the state of things.

I know which side I will fall on, its the side of the research and the objectively recorded data which shows the opposite.

Now I did find something interesting(and not surprising) when looking for information on this. The number of engineering PHD's is much higher than other fields and iirc, the margin on value for engineering PHD's is not as high as business and math fields (in terms of delta NPV salary) which does suggest your experiences is an aberration of the field, and does not represent the majority of doctorate students.

Edit: Let me explain with a bit of anecdata from the field of economics. In Econ, its not the top 25 schools that you need to get a degree from, but the top 50. Acceptance into an academic department matters less about where you come from and more about how good your dissertation is and whether or not your specialty is needed within the department. The University that I am at has 35k undergrads and is well ranked in many fields which should give you a feel for the size of the graduate programs. We have 60 econ doctorate students of all levels and ~50 professors(a size consistent with the top 20, which we do expect at constant returns to scale, but do not if the supply of students is exhausted). The incoming class is 16 students. Of which about half will leave before they complete (mostly to the private sector when they realize they don't want to do research and do want to get a well paying job). These are experiences I have that directly contradict those that you have.

Also to fix the quote

[Khaldun]

Merely having a PhD program allows access to funds that would not otherwise be possible.  This is why we saw the number of PhD programs balloon in many disciplines over the past 30 years.  This is also the reason why most disciplines now experience a glut of PhD's on the job market.  We need PhD students to get adequate funding to do our research and to do the mundane data collection required for proof of concept.  You can't get any kind of research funding without a significant population of PhD's to train in the process.  A good portion of commonly available grants for sole PI's or small teams are training grants (i.e. that the majority of the funding goes to paying salaries rather than consumables and infrastructure).  Universities like large grants as they get a percentage to cover indirect costs.  Hence, universities love large training grants and will create PhD programs to obtain them.

Public universities that are under outside pressure from legislators to prove increasing productivity also love to see more Ph.D programs simply because they're a measurable output. Which means more departments demand more funds to subsidize that production and the central administration provides that subsidy to get better numbers.

Universities that are trying to move up the hierarchy of perceived selectivity and status also sink a lot of funds into subsidizing Ph.Ds in departments or disciplines that have not previously had a doctoral program. The quality and prestige of these programs is typically low, so often in order to attract any candidates at all, the subsidies have to be fairly generous, particularly because the candidates will have much poorer prospects on the academic job market, on balance.

The upshot, once again, is that in most fields you should not pay tuition for an academic doctorate completed within a 5-7 year duration. If you are, it is either because it is a field where the ROI involves a much wider range of professional opportunities than just getting an academic job, because someone is paying for you to get the doctorate, because you are seeking academic positions in a field where there is very high demand for faculty and relatively weak supply (which is almost no disciplines), or because you're being exploited. The last is the most typical case, whether or not you believe that universities would be justified in charging tuition to doctorates in order to recoup alleged costs.  Going into significant debt to get a doctorate in a field that has no value outside of being a professor in that field (say, Elizabethean literature) is a disastrous error in judgment because even the best candidate from the best program has no assurance of getting a good tenure-track position. Non tenure-track work in academia is often extremely poorly compensated and without any job security, particularly in the humanities.

[Khaldun]

You are trying to derive a bunch of stuff from a generic theoretical knowledge of economics and a paper-thin shred of empirical evidence.

And you're applying anecdata(not even objectively recorded anecdata) to make sweeping generalizations about the state of things.

I know which side I will fall on, its the side of the research and the objectively recorded data which shows the opposite.

Now I did find something interesting(and not surprising) when looking for information on this. The number of engineering PHD's is much higher than other fields and iirc, the margin on value for engineering PHD's is not as high as business and math fields (in terms of delta NPV salary) which does suggest your experiences is an aberration of the field, and does not represent the majority of doctorate students.

Edit: Let me explain with a bit of anecdata from the field of economics. In Econ, its not the top 25 schools that you need to get a degree from, but the top 50. Acceptance into an academic department matters less about where you come from and more about how good your dissertation is and whether or not your specialty is needed within the department. The University that I am at has 35k undergrads and is well ranked in many fields which should give you a feel for the size of the graduate programs. We have 60 econ doctorate students of all levels and ~50 professors(a size consistent with the top 20, which we do expect at constant returns to scale, but do not if the supply of students is exhausted). The incoming class is 16 students. Of which about half will leave before they complete (mostly to the private sector when they realize they don't want to do research and do want to get a well paying job). These are experiences I have that directly contradict those that you have.

Also to fix the quote

Econ is one of those fields that has value outside of academia, first off, which is why there are a wider range of institutions whose degrees have high expected ROI. You are completely right in your assessment of what will get your hired into a tenure-track post: your dissertation's quality, the influence of your specific advisor, and the match between your specific areas of competency within the discipline and the needs of a hiring department. The size of your incoming class relative to your FTEs and the retention figures you cite are broadly typical at R1s.

None of which affects the question of whether an aspirant student should be willing, in general, to pay tuition to acquire a doctorate. In general, with important exceptions, they should not. They should have a reasonable expectation if they are highly qualified students of receiving a waiver and of some form of stipend.

[Jimbo]

Just curious, but do you count all the programs in medicine and dental?

Plus all the fields that used to have just a masters requirement now need a doctorate, like pharmacy, dietary, occupational therapy, physical therapy, eventually FNP's & PA's.

Oh good luck, I do find for me doing practice tests work the best for studying, that way I get a baseline of score and see what areas to review.

What is really driving me nuts, is that some Physician Assistant schools want me to take the GRE, then others want the MCAT, most PA's I've talked to say that is a new requirement.  If I could play nice with Nursing educators I could have an easier time as they want you to get a Bachelors in Nursing, then it is almost automatic enrollment in the Family Nurse Practitioner program.  One of the hardest programs to get into lately has been Occ Health Therapy, they really limit the size and class they graduate, means more jobs and money for those that get threw it, but damn it that doesn't suck if you need to see one.

[Khaldun]

Professional grad programs are totally different kettle of fish (medical, dental, pharmacy, vet, law, etc.): expect to pay through the nose for those no matter where you go or who you are.

And yeah, cases where the doctorate has become a near-requirement for career advancement in a profession other than academia are on the rise, because masters degrees are increasingly common. In those cases also expect to pay tuition.

Any time you need or want a masters for credentialling purposes, expect to pay, potentially quite a lot. A masters has almost zero value for people seeking a tenure-track faculty position in higher education, so you get the masters kind of automatically while working towards the doctorate. A so-called "terminal" masters is a completely different thing.

[petersimon786]

I am giving GRE next year and hoping to get good score, I am taking suggestion from guys who have done well in the gre, they suggest me to buy GRE test study guides  and  looked  at various prep courses and found the one at my local alma mater to be the cheapest. Drilling GRE test study guides over and over is the key so invest in the practice tests. Don't worry about timing yourself at first. Take all the time you need so you can get the feel of the questions and also see how you react: do you freeze or have your mind race? Notice this stuff. I also took the GRE Subject too. For that, I studied best with reading with a highlighter first to get the material. Then the next step when I wanted it seared in my brain, I made index cards. My verbal was incredibly high. My math was also okay so it take my interview session which helped in increasing my score.. Good luck for the exam.

GRE test study guides

[ghost]

Clever......

[01101010]

Clever......

...girl,

you are the weakest link.