MidCareer Desire to Transition to Academia

[haread]

In regards to justifying going back to school and working toward a PhD it is a product of time and reflection. In life we are all likely to have four or more careers in non-related areas.

You need to ask yourself, "What do I really want out of life? For myself? For my family?"

For me, I desire to have a much more intellectual life than one finds in corporate America. I will willingly trade dollars for intellectual stimulation.

I have worked for several Fortune 500 companies and believe me, things are not so rosy their either.

For me personally, it is about adding value and making a difference beyond a quarterly earnings statement.

When I am in front of a classroom teaching or conducting research, time flows easily. It is like I am in the zone, and it is where I want to be and something I have always wanted to do.

If I were trying to make an economic argument, then I would not pursue it. Luckily I have the support of my wife and children, who are willing to make the sacrifice with me.

Haread

PS: The best time to have pursued a PhD was 5 years ago, the second best time is today.

[mihir_kumar]

Interesting Read , and I am applying for Phd after working foir the last 11 +years ....:-)

[SpottyRecord]

Originally Posted by haread

Our tenacity, experiences, and ability to overcome adversity prove we have what it takes to complete the program of study. With only 50% of PhD candidates actually completing the dissertation phase, I believe I have a much better ROI than many younger applicants.

This is a great point, imo.

Say ROI is proportional to (years of active research)*(odds of completing dissertation).

So ROI ~ (Y)(D)

For a 25 year old, it may look like this:

ROI ~ (40)(0.5), so ROI ~ 20.

For Haread, he might be able to convince them that it looks like this:

ROI ~ (25)(1.0), so ROI ~ 25.

25>20, so Haread wins.

Go get 'em, buddy!

(just make sure you figure out the proper usage of there/their before you take the GRE)

[PHD-ASPIRE]

Hi friends,
First let me congratulate Haread for doing what he believes in!

Just finished GRE and joined this forum to deek your valuable opinions.
Scored 1410 (Q:790, V:620), AW - (I suppose was decent). My brief profile:

Nationality: Indian (age: 33)
Academics: UG (engineering), Masters (engineering) and MBA (All Top Schools in India)
Work-ex: 6 years (Mid-level management)
Research-ex: 1+ year
Publications: Working on two papers (but not published yet); a case study
GPA: Mix of good and average
My choices: LBS, INSEAD, NUS. (All ranked within top 50 mba as per FT.com, and more importantly compatible with my chosen field of res. in Strategy)

Please rate my profile, and guide me on my choices and chances.
I'd also like to ascertain my chances in top 20 US schools. Is NUS overrated or it is "comparable" with the brands like UCLA & Duke.

Please advise!!
Thanks.

[haread]

To all who have read and commented on this thread, thanks for the votes of confidence as well as the criticisms. All are welcome.

My current plan is to apply to roughly 20 schools.

Programs are both Organizational Behavior and Management.

Here is the mix:

1 - 14 : Top Twenty Programs
15 - 20: Safety Schools

Using the 80-20 rule my goal is to get accepted to at least 4 schools.

Since I am pursuing a degree in management, my experience as a practitioner may help in some ways, although the ability to do solid research is more important.

I am finding that some schools are more open to practitioners than others and I am targeting accordingly.

This should give me a good deal of breadth in the applications.

I think something many people are forgetting is the importance of the faculty members who will supervise your research.

A faculty member I am communicating with made the point that it is better to find a "mentor" in a lesser school who can help you get established, than to get into a "top" program where you end up adrift.

Haread

[possible_phd]

Originally Posted by haread

A faculty member I am communicating with made the point that it is better to find a "mentor" in a lesser school who can help you get established, than to get into a "top" program where you end up adrift.

That is absolutely true! At the end of the day, nobody hires based on institution; they hire based on RESEARCH! Of course, it would be too simplistic to say that your institution plays no role in the process, because it actually does enter into decisions of whom to interview, unfortunately. But that's about as far as it goes, from what I can tell/have heard. Consider the following:

Graduate A: from a school ranked ~30 and was able to strike up a highly productive working relationship with a professor and crank out interesting, high-quality research

Graduate B: from a top 5 school who was adrift and therefore has only slightly interesting work -- and maybe none of his own at all

Who do you think gets the faculty position? Graduate A does, every time.

Going to a highly "ranked" school really only serves two purposes, from what I can tell. First, they generally (though not always) have a higher caliber faculty, which is what you want, since you're there to learn from them; but absorbing their knowledge depends largely on your effort. And second, having a top program on your resume will help get your name into the consideration set when you go on the market. But again, at the end of the day, YOU are on the market, not your program.

Good luck in the application season, bud. You seem to be doing everything right!

[haread]

PossiblePhD- Thanks for the vote of confidence. I am realizing that it is definitely a marathon and not a sprint.

It's funny I am constantly adding and removing programs from my consideration list as I learn more about them, and figure out who is doing interesting work.

Some faculty have been very kind, sending me articles or interest and links for further information.

Others have been very curt, i.e., "I am extremely busy."

I understand that. However, I do not want to end up somewhere only to have my supervisors and advisory committee be standoffish.

Cheers!

Haread

[SpottyRecord]

Originally Posted by possible_phd

Graduate A: from a school ranked ~30 and was able to strike up a highly productive working relationship with a professor and crank out interesting, high-quality research

Graduate B: from a top 5 school who was adrift and therefore has only slightly interesting work -- and maybe none of his own at all

Who do you think gets the faculty position? Graduate A does, every time.

But what if graduate A's school is ranked 100-130 (but has a professor in the top 10 in his field with whom A works)?

[possible_phd]

If that prof has a strong reputation, you are able to be highly productive, and the field in which he's a "top 10" is in demand on the job market, I can't imagine that someone from a top 5 without good research would trump you. However, the further down you go, the harder it'll be to overcome. There are no hard and fast rules here, so factor in your own tolerance for risk.

[TraderJoe]

Do you really want to be a grandpop to the other PhD students?