starting over in math or physics?

Bachelier · Post by **Bachelier** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:50 am

there are two schools that I know of that *commonly* have guys in their late 40s, early 50s starting brand-new undergraduate degrees in math, engineering, or physics: Texas A&M and Georgia Tech. Granted, over 50% of them are retired military types who got some sort of non-specific undergrad degree (Military History) while in Uncle Sam's forces, and because of their security backgrounds and ability for mobility now are best suited to work in petroleum or resource exploration, etc. Texas A&M will even let you do a undergrad-masters-phd in seven years on the engineering side.

I'd say you'd have a tougher case to make with places like MIT and Berkeley and Caltech and StoneyBrook math departments...they really want young guys with potential for longevity in a career and advancement in fields. But other place that are resource starved but have respectable faculty may appreciate someone with motivaation and checks appeal.

Self-learning is noble, but i think there is some element of external validation that is internalized by deciding to get a degree. At my old colllege there were a bunch of 60 and 70 year olds in an "Evergreen" program that were placed into regular undergrad classes. They were disruptive, talked too long, and pulled "I rememeber back when you were in diapers" kinda stuff with the profs, and pissed the kids off. Reason? They weren't being graded on the content they were austensibly there to absorb, but we were. My two-centimnes is if you decide to do this, decide to submit to the discipline of following the coursework to be granted the degree.

Full disclosure: as soon as I hit my "number" and then hit my wife's "number" (exponential growth function on that one) I'm going to do the same thing in applied math for finance. I'll have to get a stinkin' French DEA to patch up my spotty undergrad and grad math to do a real applied math degree, and it will bite hard, but I'm gonna suck it up and move on.

Baltazar · Post by **Baltazar** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:16 am

these lectures are Awesome

i finally see faces of a lot of people i've been reading from, cool

i have to check this out in more details

sorry for that almost off topic

Rookie_Quant · Post by **Rookie_Quant** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:31 pm

Thanks for all the replies...im frantically logging and bookmarking. I've seen the MIT open courseware, but I probably need to start more fundamental. I dont mind paying (or paying up for that matter) for quality instruction/interaction, but truthfully dont care if I get a degree or recognition from MIT vs some obscure college, as long as the knowledge and pursuit are close to comparable.

The real struggle I deal with is that I love economics; moreso theory and economic history than econometrics, but still enjoy the field. I'm enthralled by math and physics, but am inversely skilled in those areas. I'm also 25 years old and should have my MSc in Econ in 2 years max. So, again assuming I won the lottery and can pay for my wife's growing expenditure function (and mine too), it seems that intellectually I am at a crossroad...either go do a PhD or further economic study (enjoyable) or 'start over' and learn a new subject that's im more passionate about but also less likely to "get."

Either way, all helpful info so far.

rod · Post by **rod** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:45 pm

You're 25 yo only? You're young. If you want to do serious study and research in math/phys you still have plenty of time Party

A German guy I know started his undergraduate studies at age 26 because he was partying for 8 straight years. That can be done too.

tristanreid · Post by **tristanreid** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:06 am

You might want to look at http://www.distancecalculus.com/syllabi/ to take multi-variable calculus, diff.eq, linear algebra, and they have a calculus based probability course that isn't listed on the syllabus. The advantage (if you're ok with the distance thing) is that it's all hand-on applied stuff in mathematica, it's also completely at your own pace, so you can fly through the courses or you can take up to a year to finish, and finally it's accredited, so you can use the credits to build prereqs for graduate study.

-t.

Rookie_Quant · Post by **Rookie_Quant** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:38 pm

tristanreid,

another great link...thanks!

kronon · Post by **kronon** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:16 pm

I think starting over at any age can be extremely rewarding; but I wouldnt brush over too lightly the realities of being 'the old guy' in class. Think annoying ring-tones, crunching crisp bags and always having to pay for the drinks. And that was just my phd class...

rod · Post by **rod** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:59 pm

Well, if one goes back to school for undergraduate studies, it's likely that one's classmates will be under 21, and... voilá, no need to pay for drinks (alcoholic ones, at least...) Wink

nuno · Post by **nuno** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:20 am

i don't think i'm ready to go back to school if it means i have to hang out with these kids

jslade · Post by **jslade** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:55 am

Here's what I'd do: some sort of observational astrophysics. When C.H. Townes invented the laser and won the Nobel, he realized his scientific life in experimental physics was finito. All he'd be able to do is sit on committee meetings and junk. My man is 93 years old now, and still going strong in observational astronomy (an old chum of mine runs one of his detector programs). Sharp as a tack. One of the guys who lives in my apartment building is an old cosmic ray dude; in his 80-90s and very bright and engaged in life. I don't know any 90 year old mathematicians who aren't completely nuts. I don't know any 90 year old experimental physicists at all -none who are still in the trade anyway.

In things like observational astronomy or astrophysics, you don't have to be such a mathematical genius you're socially crippled. There is also a ton of funding for it, as the results are extremely appealing to taxpayers. I think it's actually very exciting to everybody, wheras calculating an extra term in a perturbation series or putting shitonium on silicon-111 lacks that sort of sex appeal. I think this is true in both in the, "chatting up girls in a bar" sense, as well as the "getting up in the morning" sense of things. Finally, despite the size of the field, I think the competition is pretty weak. Most people who choose astronomy as a career are dreamers. If you can bring a little rigor to your speciality, you will stand out like a wart on a bald head. Shucks, it is one of the few hard sciences where dedicated amateurs can make important contributions.