How intelligent do you need to be to do a PhD?

[Thefifthbeatle]

I have been starting to look into the entry requirements for a PhD in history and am feeling a bit inadequate; I'm not sure whether I might make a fool of myself if I apply/if I get in.

I have a 2:1 from Oxford in history but it wasn't a great 2:1 (63). I'm ashamed to say that I didn't do a huge amount of work at law school because I was so incredibly bored, so didn't get amazing results (69), but could probably have done better if I had pulled my finger out. I don't yet have a master's, although I appreciate that I am likely to need one. I love spending my days researching; I've spent the last 15 years as a lawyer, but want to direct it into something I love, rather than the GDPR, etc. I'd be the first to confess that at 20, I probably wasn't a very original thinker. I wasn't ever going to get thrown out of college, but I was so anxious to get it "right" that my essays were probably regurgitated facts rather than ground breaking arguments. I'm not completely stupid, but I am very far from being a genius.

I don't need to worry about funding; I am lucky enough to be able to pay for this myself. I'm just worried that I'm not bright enough for this, or that even if I get accepted, it'll be miserable because I'll always feel like the most stupid person in the room. For context, I have recently been made redundant because the company is collapsing, so my confidence is pretty low right now.

Might anyone know whether it sounds as though I'd be hopelessly out of my depth? And is it the case that some universities would in practice accept less stellar candidates? Is it easier for example to get into the Open University than it is to get into Oxford?

Thank you.

Oh I will add that he never went to university when young. He start his degree when I did but just kept going.

It's very rare these days to do a PhD without a Masters or with a 2:2. Sorry.
I believe the OU is on-site study for PhD but distance for Masters.

I am in academia and I work with some of the least intelligent people I have ever met. Of course there are some very clever people with PhDs.

However, a PhD is not necessarily evidence of cleverness and you do not have to be clever to get one. You need the ability to cultivate relationships, and at the same time work independently. You need to be very motivated to be recognised as clever, and to have the stamina to commit to your chosen topic for X number of years, even if you get sick of it. You have to have tolerance for tedium and boredom.

More than cleverness, a PhD requires specific personality traits and habits.

OP I can send you details of a contact in the OU if you would like any advice.
She would certainly point you in the right direction regarding the OU.

My DH has one, and he's a bit of an idiot .

If that's what you want to do, go for it! It's a lot of work, but tend to think more mature students handle academia better anyway!

I started my PhD late in life. My husband said ‘you realise you will be 50 when you get it’ to which I replied ‘ I’ll be 50 anyway so I might as well be 50 with a PhD’.
Achieving a PhD is 95% down to hard work and only 5% intelligence. The most important thing is to chose a topic you are passionate about because you have to live with it, read about only that, for anywhere between 3 and 7 years. I recommend writing your acknowledgements page very early because you will want to be able to use it. Find out what the graduation gown for your chosen institution looks like and picture yourself in it and work towards that day. You will be fine. Good luck!

The problem with these threads is that there is a lot of variance across different disciplines. So what is true for sciences is not necessarily true for humanities. Also, a lot of people will try to put you off and describe it as an almost impossible process, which the number of people getting PhDs each year surely renders untrue.

I started this year, after several years of to-and-fro - hence my username! There are online PhDs around, but I came to the conclusion that I wanted to go to a face-to-face university and also somewhere that was part of a research councils funding network. Search for AHRC, as I think this is the funding body for history doctorates.

You almost certainly need to do a masters first, with a strong research methods component. You can then use your dissertation as a jumping-off point for your PhD research.
Hope that helps.

@mdh2020
I'm aiming for the big five-oh too!
How far along are you?

I've got a PhD and I know a good handful of others with one. I did a science one so mine was funded by a research council. I went into mine straight after a Master's and a First. Day to day, it wasn't 'hard' - it was all about perseverance. Keeping my experiment running was not the difficult bit. The write up was hard, because it was done when I worked full time after my funding finished. It had some ridiculously hard maths and concepts in it. I certainly didn't write a book by myself for a few years. It was a lonely experience; literally nobody else gives a shit. Finding the right supervisor is very important; mine wasn't good and I did suffer a bit. Don't think about the kudos of the institution too much either, because it's all about the right project. If you're self-funded, most places will snap you up. There were some really good bits as well. I really enjoyed teaching the undergrads and I utterly loved conferences (going, presenting and doing posters). It's opened doors for me professionally and, rather childishly, I enjoy how much it annoys some men when I introduce myself as 'Dr'.

In addition to what has been said above, you do also need to be emotionally robust, and to be able to cope with criticism from your supervisors.

As pp have said it is not so much about intelligence as it is stamina and motivation. I would strongly recommend doing an MRes first to see if that kind of academic research is right for you as well as whether you are right for it.

I'm am doing a masters as a mature student at the moment and I love it. It's at my local uni and I am in fact learning a lot from the other students too. There is an interesting array of experiences. I am thinking about doing a PhD too.

Go for it!

I did a PhD in a humanities subject after my career imploded. Like you, I was self-funded and my impression is that entrance criteria are not high provided you can find a supervisor to support your proposal.
I did a Masters first and am very glad I did. First of all, it was a way of dipping my toe in the water - if I’d decided research wasn’t for me, I could have bowed out after a year with a degree to show for it. Second, it was on one of the MA modules that I encountered what became my PhD - a subject I was instantly attracted to and remained passionate about through all the (inevitable) dark times.
Yes, it was hard and lonely and the writing-up was hell, but all the time I was just so grateful not to be doing a job I hated.

I think you’ve got a bit of Dunning-Kruger going on there.

I think you mean 'imposter syndrome' ... DK is pretty much the opposite.

Going against the somewhat faux modesty on the thread (I wonder if quite the same responses would have been generated on a forum which isn't predominantly female?) ... well, yes, of course you need to be pretty intelligent relative to the norm if you're going to do worthwhile research, but you don't have to be anything like a genius. So, sure, people like you OP.

So after that... self motivation, diigence, some amount of out of the box thinking perhaps.

From everything you've said ... what have you got to lose by trying? Maybe do the masters first.

I'm applying to the OU and I'm really impressed by them.

I am an ex-lawyer doing a PhD. Got a 2:1 from Cambridge but no masters. I’m heading towards submission in the autumn, almost 5 years after I started. It has been hard work but there haven’t been any ‘dark’ times and I’m enjoying the write up. You sound very much like me in terms of academic confidence - the day before I started the PhD I had a dream my Cambridge DoS was hunting me down to try and kill me because I shouldn’t be doing a PhD However, I have found that being a mature student and having worked has really changed me from the undergraduate I was. If I could go back and do my undergrad now I know I could do better. I still have imposter syndrome quite often, but I am more confident in my abilities and my supervisors have been great in guiding me but at the same time (gently) forcing me to make my own decisions. I personally think that my law career and the pressure of juggling it with children left me feeling a bit like a failure and the PhD has built my confidence back up again. I think you should at least look into it - don’t stay in your comfort zone, nothing truly rewarding happens there.

What would you want to do with it when you finish? Academia is hard to break into even with a PhD, and I suspect is only going get to get harder post covid-19.

I also agree that you need to have a post PhD plan - mine has not helped me in my career at all. I am still happy to have got it but post-PhD has been disappointing.

Not very. These days they hand you a degree just for showing up.

I am a doctor with an Oxbridge undergraduate degree. My record is traditionally academic as you might imagine. However I would say that doing my doctorate required a completely different skill set. It’s probably a bit different for an arts subject but some things will be the same: I had to get really good at time management, I learnt to apply for grants and other funding, how to critical review literature, how to write on a much bigger scale than anything I had done before. I also learn a lot of lab skills that probably won’t apply to you 😊. I can’t comment on how likely you are to get a place but I don’t think your previous record (which is absolutely fine anyway) will hold you back. A masters might be a good start - I haven’t done one but have friends who have and the skills needed seem similar to phd skills.

If you have a 2:1 you will are totally smart enough. I felt after mine that it was basically down to perseverance during hard times and not giving up! Different skill set entirely - was a bit of a shock when I started as was used to just needing my brain!

A benefit of a masters would be to give you a test bed for your ideas. If there's a suitable course available, you could write essays on a few of your potential subjects, take them forward a bit and see where they could lead, get feedback from the tutors, develop a favourite as your dissertation. So a useful short-listing and testing process.

It would also help bring you up to date with current methods and state of play in your subject. Historical research methods may not change much (I don't know) but the academic milieu can; its social context, what's fashionable and what's not etc. A masters gives you access to a department full of academics, graduate students and all their guest speakers and events, so a great opportunity to survey the lay of the land, bounce your ideas around and seek guidance and intros to useful contacts, as well as on subject matter.

If you are paying for the PhD they’d likely take you without a masters. I know someone who has done this.

It’s about research. You don’t need a mass of natural intellect it’s more having the drive to do it and the ability to think critically.

I’m starting a funded PhD on 1st July (if I pass my Masters dissertation 😳 should find out in the next few weeks!)

I have an ordinary bachelors degree (no Honours - I did a top-up degree after an HNC and Honours wasn’t an option. The course was one year long and everyone exited with an ordinary degree). I suppose I did an MSc in place of the Honours year to boost my qualifications but it turned out I bloody love research and that’s what pushed me to apply for a PhD.

I’d say you’re definitely smart enough but I’d recommend doing a Masters to prepare you for how gruelling it will be. Doing my dissertation was brutal but I think it has made me up my game, so to speak. I definitely wasn’t ready for PhD study after my BA.

I’ve worked in professional services in a university for eight years so I’ve been on the periphery of academia for a long time. I know it’s a tough gig but I’m going in with my eyes open, and also have back up plans if I can’t crack into a research career afterwards.

Oh but, unless you have a year to spare in between a masters and PhD, you'd need to start applying for your PhD in the autumn of your masters - though maybe that's only true if you're seeking funded places. So you need to know what you want to do at the same time as you're developing your ideas. Tricky.

If you're self-funding, I imagine you could pretty much get to the summer and into your dissertation, then say 'see you in October then?'. They're not going to turn down hard cash, pretty much for anyone who meets the entry criteria, I'd have thought.

If you wanted to apply elsewhere for your PhD, contact a few potential supervisors etc, then you'd need to start earlier of course.