31

I hesitated to ask this question since it may not relevant to this website, but I saw a question of same category here but still couldn't find an answer ...

Since childhood, I've had a sharp enthusiasm for Maths, studying books from an elementary level to ones suited for the level of a Masters of Science student at Melbourne University. I am currently 15, but the formal classroom setting feels like a waste of my time. Because of my passion for Maths, going through the formal procedure of education is making me severely depressed...

Here is my question:

What careers which do not require an academic degree (all research positions require a PhD) might be open (in Australia) to a self-learner who wants to do research on Pure Mathematics?

Salaries for a postdoc position are ~80k in Australia, but I am looking for a research career even of a ~15k salary because that would be enough money to survive while doing research. I have yet to published any paper to impress some institution to believe in me, if it helps at all.

EDIT - Thank you all very much for your very informative answers. To be more precise, I would like to write my main reasons of the 'horror' of university:

  1. Solving exercises or studying the texts in self-study themselves can (although difficult) be stopped for the duration of university affairs (classes, ...) but I believe that research can't be frequently stopped by other irrelevant things even with university affairs [university classes will be Math, but not be the research that I want to engross in, at least for first few years], since being creative requires to be much more engrossed (to put it simpler: 1 2-day is more efficient than 2 1-day for research).

  2. Even with prestigious universities it involves a lot of bureaucracy, which they may find necessary to obtain a degree but are irrelevant to Mathematics.

  3. Being very deep concentrated and having manic passion causes a lot sensitivity, that's why we have some recluse people (in Arts and Science) and most of them are suffering from Bipolar Disorder caused by their manic-enthusiasm. While there are many people with great achievements living in society with high-degrees UNFORTUNATELY I don't think it's impossible for me.

    3a. An example of negativity in university education is the focus on institutional ranking. Combined with job-seaerching being the main purpose of study for some, it could impact someone who just seeks the beauty of Mathematics faith in seeking a degree.

  4. University costs a lot for a Bachelors of Science, much more than it would to be a mathematician in solitude.

EDIT 2 - In my question, I have asked that from where I can get financial support for basic life expenditure, however many answers include enrollment in universities which costs A LOT for just BSc (supposing that I can survive with my mentioned conditions in first EDIT).

Thank you, everyone. I highly appreciate the brilliant advise in many of your answers, however my main question remains how would I pursue research in Mathematics without a degree? I know the path that is recommended for pursuing a research career, but the cost of university and not having peace of mind are too great of an expense for me.

MKR
  • 921
  • 2
  • 9
  • 22
  • 5
    Before assuming that formal education is out of the question, consider the fact that you will get more mature and the classes will get more demanding as time goes on. – Patricia Shanahan Jun 09 '15 at 10:42
  • 18
    ... and if you really are ahead of your class mates, many university professors are willing to help you design your own program, such as by designing special classes for you, or by letting you get in on their research. – Dave Clarke Jun 09 '15 at 11:16
  • @Dave Clarke - NOT at all! I asked a professor to do research under his supervision, and in reply he said "I would prefer to supervise my students" and he meant that even if he have time for me. Maybe they get promotions if their helps are 'official'? – MKR Jun 09 '15 at 12:04
  • 9
    The comment said "many university professors" not "all university professors". You may need to ask several people. The more evidence of unusual talent for mathematics you can present, the better. Do you have references from any of your teachers? – Patricia Shanahan Jun 09 '15 at 12:09
  • 5
    Also, note that you are not enrolled at a university. I'd be similarly reserved if someone off the street asked me whether they could do research with me. This is probably what the professor means by "my students". And yes. It takes time to do the supervision, so they want to know what benefit they will gain, be it publications or promotions. – Dave Clarke Jun 09 '15 at 12:12
  • 1
    @Patricia Shanahan - Honestly, no teacher likes me since I am sitting in the back of class to study my own texts which have already raised a lot their angers, let alone they write a good letter as a recommendation. – MKR Jun 09 '15 at 13:09
  • 33
    One thing it's important to understand: University is not just "Advanced High School", it's a very, very different animal, and you'll be around a different group of people. Many people who hated highschool loved university (myself included) – LindaJeanne Jun 09 '15 at 13:40
  • 24
    Don't get ahead of yourself. You're very young, and when you're a bit older you will realize how little you used to know and how much humility you should have shown. This is not anything personal, just a universal fact about wisdom: the more you know, the more you know of your ignorance. Read Plato's "The Apology." – mbsq Jun 09 '15 at 16:02
  • 5
    If no teacher likes you because you waste their time by not paying attention then you need to take a step back and redefine your goals.Why bother to go to class, and frankly waste time and money, if you are not going to at least present an interested front? You need to show your instructors that you are not a goof off and that you are willing to put in the effort and maybe they will take you more seriously. – scrappedcola Jun 09 '15 at 17:54
  • 20
    Note that studying at an elite university does not necessarily involve taking classes. In at least some (e.g. Cambridge), the only requirement is that you sit the examinations. Class attendance is entirely optional, and if you can pass the exam without attending class, that's fine. If you are really as advanced as you suggest, professors will be happy to guide you in more advanced study, and probably fight with each other to have you work with them. Don't underestimate the value of having experienced, intelligent people to discuss your research with. – avid Jun 09 '15 at 21:51
  • 2
    Honestly, no teacher likes me — [citation needed] You mean no bad teacher likes you. – JeffE Jun 09 '15 at 21:59
  • 3
    Is it really that hard to just get a degree? – Superbest Jun 09 '15 at 22:44
  • 1
    @avid I believe that's generally true. It serves nobody to "take attendance". I'm sure even many high schools wouldn't bother if it weren't a legal requirement. – OJFord Jun 09 '15 at 22:51
  • 3
    @OllieFord I have seen examples of courses/universities where attending a certain fraction of classes is a course requirement. I don't know how common this is, but I can imagine it is both region-dependent, and institution-status-dependent. Of course, practical classes in science/engineering subjects may be an exception (or rather, these are continuously examined). – avid Jun 09 '15 at 23:01
  • 1
    @avid I did hear of it one time: a friend had a couple of courses that registered attendance. Apparently they quickly established that absent names should be written down (yes, it was paper-based!) to the extent that names appeared multiple times! – OJFord Jun 09 '15 at 23:09
  • 3
    "Well, Mr @OllieFord. Would you like to explain to me why you failed my course despite attending all my lectures twice?" – avid Jun 09 '15 at 23:11
  • 5
    This question needs a lot of work to clarify it and turn it into an answerable question. Currently the title ("Can I do research just because I am able to?") is tautological: it is equivalent to "If I can do research, can I do research?", to which the only answer is yes. Perhaps you meant "Can I get a paying job doing research without a university degree?" If so, you should edit your question to ask that. Also, you should tell us what research you've done. There are lots of other questions here about doing research without a formal PhD degree or university affiliation. – D.W. Jun 09 '15 at 23:29
  • 3
    Posting as a comment, as this advice does not address the question as stated. If you have really understood masters level material at 15, I would expect Maths to be the one subject that would accommodate getting an accelerated degree. I have certainly seen this happen with UK universities, but do not know for sure of cases in Melbourne. I suggest you get in touch with the local Universities again and ask for broader guidance on what they can offer you. Find out whether they have prior experience - you are not the first mathematician to be in this situation. Finally: be prepared to listen. – Keith Jun 10 '15 at 03:23
  • 2
    @MKR The job you are describing sounds a lot like graduate school. If you are based in Australia, try to get in touch with Tony Guttmann at Melbourne. He has worked with several gifted young scholars to help them accelerate their math education. – Zach H Jun 10 '15 at 13:38
  • 1
    @ZachH's comment has illustrated exactly what you'll get from pursuing a degree. Let's assume that you really are capable of doing this advanced work and you're going to find the academic work boring & frustrating. There are still some very important things to gain from the education: connections with people involved in your field, skills in presenting your work (both written and in conferences/symposia), familiarity with the social environment in which you would like to work, recognition that you really do have the qualifications (as assessed by others), etc. – Kryten Jun 10 '15 at 14:25
  • 1
    I doubt studying in Australia costs over 100k for a domestic student. As a gifted student, you should also be able to obtain scholarships quite easily. And if university isn't challenging enough, you could work part time to diminish the financial impact. Afterwards, you will also be able to command a salary much higher than your stated "~ 15k", so see it as an investment. – user8001 Jun 10 '15 at 14:40
  • Check out http://www.crank.net/maths.html as a warning of going out there on your own. I remember in the old newsgroups days, a gentleman by the name of James Harris who spent maybe a decade trying to push his "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem. He managed to find a journal that was going to publish one of his side proofs only to have it rejected at the last minute. He got quite bitter after that and is probably still just as angry today. –  Jun 10 '15 at 16:52
  • 1
    I think the people recommending going for a degree are assuming academic scholarships. Presumably, you have a very high GPA or you would be paying attention in class rather than sitting at the back reading other material. You do need to favorably impress at least one mathematics teacher, to get the right recommendations. – Patricia Shanahan Jun 10 '15 at 18:46
  • @YiminRong Most of those links 404. Do you have a good example? – TankorSmash Jun 10 '15 at 19:42
  • 1
    @TankorSmash - Just what you see in the summaries. I don't have the resources any more to keep up with where the cranks hang out these days. UseNet sci.math and sci.physics were the best, but they have since collapsed, as has most of UseNet. –  Jun 10 '15 at 21:12
  • @LindaJeanne Last year, a professor allowed me to sit in his class as a visitor for couple of times. He was teaching from H L Royden and P Fitzpatrick - Real Analysis. Two reasons raised even to push me more far than I used to like to be away from university: 1- I had studied that book so deep that it sounded to me he was just 'reading' the pages to students, 2- Even if there is a brilliant lecturer to teach, e.g. that book, attending many classes just because I have left with 2-3% of that book not understood is not fair. – MKR Jun 12 '15 at 11:27
  • 3
    Normally, any research position within university includes some hours a weeks for teaching as an obligation, e.g. postdoc fellowship. If you want to live frugally and be free to do math research, you could be a tutor by advertising. Some advantages of tutoring are: no high physical demand, possibly of increasing your rate gradually, it makes you learn better, be still in society of education. Melb Uni is an elite; it should be like Cambridge Uni of Australia (you sit the examinations as @avid said). –  Jun 12 '15 at 12:01
  • 1
    @MKR one option would be to search for a university that will allow you to test out of introductory classes, so you can begin with classes that are on your level. – LindaJeanne Jun 12 '15 at 12:02
  • 3
    One thing not mentioned often enough here imho: If there are those jobs, how are you going to get them? Who would hire you on the grounds of you beeing exceptionally good at maths with only your own assurance that you indeed are? You say you want neither a PhD nor do even your math teachers think very highly of you. You need some way of proving your qualities. Either publish something before having a job (most journals do not care for credentials, they are used to undergrads) or get an endorsement by someone highly respected in the field. Of course, both a lot harder than a PhD in University. – DeVadder Jun 12 '15 at 12:53
  • 8
    I am sorry, but if you would be as good as you think your are you would have some sort of proof for this (for examples prizes at the International Mathematical Olympiad at some level). Just reading a math book and think you understood everything is unfortunately not enough. – dirkk Jun 12 '15 at 13:25
  • 5
    @MKR Have you competed in any mathematics competitions, or done anything else that could act as objective evidence of your talents? If not, you should definitely consider doing something like that; for instance, getting a high score on the Putnam might be impressive enough to get the attention of some professors. (People are often impressed if you get any points on the test.) – Kyle Strand Jun 12 '15 at 21:36
  • @dirkk - to attend in IMO, one has to be a part of a team who go through a ~1-year training period. With all respect for these brilliant students, I have say my objections: 1- restriction in some bounded level of math for a long period of time, 2- everyday day in imposed atmosphere of competition (If one claims to be on one's own, has no idea of inside there) , 3- prefer to publish a paper in those period since I've already come some of the way which could impress a research team same or even more (not certainly less) to pay attention to me... – MKR Jun 13 '15 at 01:46
  • 16
    @MKR I'm starting to get the feeling that no matter how brilliant you are, your reluctance to work with other people and your certainty of your own superior mathematical skill (even if that self-perception is accurate) threaten to overshadow your talents and impede your career. – Kyle Strand Jun 13 '15 at 04:57
  • @Shmoo - Thank you very much for your edit. :) – MKR Jul 25 '15 at 18:09
  • @MKR You're welcome. I was a little worried that the edits I made would obscure you're tone of voice or intent, so hopefully they are inline with what you asked and helped users with their answers. – Shmoo Jul 25 '15 at 18:16

11 Answers11

65

Be very wary of doing mathematical research on your own. Even if you read all the books there are, you will most likely go off on a tangent and reinvent a theory that has been known in math for decades or centuries - simply because you never heard about it and did not know the commonly accepted names of the structures you have been working with. Or, as others point out, you might work on something that may be true but is of zero interest to anyone else.

If all you are looking for is the joy of doing mathematics, that may well be fine (although even then I'd say using up-to-date tools and theory would probably be more satisfying, just as I'd prefer to code on a modern machine and not an antique, even if it does run a compiler). However, if you want to make a difference in the mathematical world, possibly publish your findings, then you will need to interact with other mathematicians.

And this is where a formal education will help. A math degree will show other mathematicians that you at least have learned the fundamentals. When you contact a mathematician, you will need to differentiate yourself from a random crank. There are far too many home-educated random cranks in mathematics, and you are lucky if they self-identify by claiming that they can solve the general quintic equation by radicals. Having a degree in math will make it easier for you to get other mathematicians to talk to you. In addition, your advisor will have decades more experience than you and will be able to steer you in fruitful directions.

Stephan Kolassa
  • 34,479
  • 11
  • 114
  • 185
  • 7
    Good point about the cranks. There are so many people out there that have solved science... – Davidmh Jun 09 '15 at 13:38
  • 12
    There was a guy down the pub that could solve quintic equations... it was radical. – Ali Caglayan Jun 09 '15 at 15:35
  • 11
    "you might work on something that may be true but is of zero interest to anyone else" I don't know very many mathematicians that don't do this. – zibadawa timmy Jun 10 '15 at 02:12
  • 14
    @zibadawatimmy: do you know very many mathematicians at all? Most mathematicians publish articles about their work, that at least a referee and an editor deemed interesting, and are asked to give talks about their work. There is a distinction to be made between "work that only interests a few specialists" and "work that interests no one else than you". – Benoît Kloeckner Jun 10 '15 at 08:41
  • 6
    @BenoîtKloeckner Your inability to recognize a simple joke and immediate recourse to pedantic hair splitting clearly identifies you as one to me. I can do this because I am one, myself. You gotta relax. Any normal person would recognize "only a few specialists are interested in this" as "this is of zero interest to anyone else", and would have a playful laugh while doing so. But if we're really going this route, I would take issue with your assertion that there is even such a thing as a mathematical fact that only one person finds interesting. That's absurd. – zibadawa timmy Jun 10 '15 at 08:53
  • 6
    @zibadawatimmy: a mathematical fact that only one person finds interesting would be very interesting indeed! This reminds me of the well-known proof that all natural numbers are interesting: assume the contrary, i.e., that there are uninteresting natural numbers. Then the smallest such number would be very interesting indeed, by virtue of its property of being the smallest uninteresting number. – Stephan Kolassa Jun 10 '15 at 08:55
  • 6
    @zibadawatimmy: I made my comment because in the context of the question and the answer, I felt yours could be taken seriously (I confess I did) and be misleading. The phrase of Stephan Kolassa is to be taken seriously, and I think what he meant is much closer to literally "zero interest to anyone else" than to "interesting enough to a few mathematicians that they will read your paper or listen to your talk": if it where not too aggressive I would point you to mathematical facts that as far as I know are indeed of interest to their author and no one else. This is an important piece of advice. – Benoît Kloeckner Jun 10 '15 at 09:16
  • 16
    Theorem: All natural numbers are boring. Proof: For the sake of contradiction, suppose some natural numbers are interesting. Let x be the smallest interesting natural number. Who cares? QED. – JeffE Jun 11 '15 at 01:46
40

The question you seem to be asking is "Can I be paid to do research, without any formal education, if I am very good?" The likely answer is no. I know many serious researchers across countless fields, and the only ones I am aware of who can make a living without any formal training are inventors who got quite lucky in terms of their ideas and their marketability. Many great artists, mathematicians, and scientists did other things to survive while doing the work they were truly passionate for, and we romanticise many very inspirational people. Research is probably much more a function of diligence and persistence, even when things are depressingly boring, than it is of intelligence or genius. I would suggest reading some of the good bits of advice many modern prodigies have given on the subject. Terence Tao in particular has several good pieces on accelerated education, working hard, and being a genius.

Yes, school can be terribly dull if you are quick. But being able to succeed in that environment is an invaluable human skill, which will prove useful in a research career when looking for funding, or when setting up research groups and similar things, as well as really showing that you have a sense of humility. We can complain about how slow and tedious bureaucracy can be, but if you really are quite good, it is worth your time to learn and understand how to survive in it. Mathematics is not simply something devoid of social interaction or human involvement. Pure and applied mathematics stem from human ideas and are inherently connected to social and cultural concepts, and these connections are often a part of what traditional formal education gives us. I would absolutely advise you to go further than what you see in a classroom, do independent and guided research as early as possible, and test out of whatever classes you can. But skipping the process entirely will handicap your ability to contribute meaningfully to mathematical research.

Andrew Krause
  • 685
  • 5
  • 7
  • 18
    The key thing here is guidance, I think, as research divorced from human interaction is the surest path to self-delusion. Community brings social and political challenges, but it also brings peer review. One of the things I've learned as I slowly become an expert in various aspects of my field is that I've had to grow out of several misunderstandings along the way. Perhaps you will make fewer mistakes than I did, but, without guidance, it might take a long time to even find out if you have. The human challenges are often harder than the technical, but I've found it worth the effort. – Dan Bryant Jun 09 '15 at 15:04
36

Research is demanding (well, at least good research is), and a career in research requires discipline, among other things. I understand being bored in classes, but if you don't have the discipline to go through a standard academic program, it doesn't bode well for a research career.

One option is: if the courses really are too easy for you, you may be able to arrange to take more advanced courses instead (AP, IB, possibly at a university), or go to university early.

Basil Bourque
  • 297
  • 3
  • 6
Kimball
  • 32,248
  • 7
  • 64
  • 169
34

There certainly exist math classes that would not bore you; they might simply be more advanced classes than the ones you're in right now. It is difficult to answer precisely without knowing more about your situation (notably which country you live in, how far you are in your studies right know), but I don't think your goal should be to avoid PhD: doing a PhD is both the gatekeeper to research positions and really about doing research, so if you are dedicated to math your goal should be to do a great PhD, not to avoid it. Without a PhD, as mentioned you can still do math by yourself while working on a side job, but this has several drawbacks. You cannot expect to get a paid research position, even with very low salary (by the way there exist low-salary research positions that require a PhD). Also, note that even if you are very bright, actually advancing the knowledge of humanity takes a great deal of work and effort. Be prepared for the path to be long, the tests to be tough, and be prepared to fail more often than you succeed.

Let me give an example of possible path in a specific case. I assume you are indeed great at math and knowledgeable (beware that some people are delusional about this, but let this point apart). If you where a French high-school student (or European with fluent French), I would then suggest you take a look at math (and physics) tests for entering Écoles Normales Supérieures. If you are able to do great at them, then you might be able to enter these schools younger than most students, and there you will find a very favorable environment which would be very different from what you know. There is hardly any chance you would get bored for long. If the tests are too difficult for you, then work toward them and see whether you can move forward one class, and aim to enter a good "classe prepa" to prepare for these tests as soon as you reasonably can (though for this you will need support from your teachers).

If you are willing to move or already in the right place, the same kind of advice can work, to look at what it takes to enter elite universities around the world, which are used to accomodate young brilliant student (I heard that Don Zagier could not do its undergraduate study at Cambridge because he was 12 or 13 at the time and they had a policy of not taking undergrad before 16, but that then he settled for MIT and came back to Cambridge for graduate studies, at the age of 15).

Benoît Kloeckner
  • 14,620
  • 39
  • 77
20

Can you do research without formal education? Sure. Will it be of any relevance? Perhaps not so much.

There are a few advantages that a formal education gives you. First, it sort of forces you to sit through a series of topics that you may find boring, uninteresting, or irrelevant at the moment; but at some point they may turn out to be useful. Conversely, it also gives you easy access to other branches that may be quite difficult to get on on your own, but may prove useful later. For example, in a course on Theoretical Physics tailored for Mathematicians you may discover a certain trick to solve a particular problem that may pop up outside of Physics.

These extra courses also provide a broader view and understanding. Mathematics are useless unless they serve some sort of purpose, even if it is inside Mathematics. Knowing a bit of everything can help you find applications and identify potentially interesting problems. If you are unlucky, you may find yourself working for years in a theory that may be correct, but essentially useless for anybody else.

Related to the previous point is that it is easier to get expert supervision. At the beginning of your career, you work with a professor, that is the one giving you the broader understanding of the field, useful references, contacts, etc. that only years of experience can teach you.

You said you read a MSc level book, but have you fully understood it? How can you be sure of that? As an undergrad I thought I had master partial differential equations, and I totally aced the exam, only to find that my understanding was flawed, and all the answers were wrong. If I had not had an external evaluation, I would have taken me a long time to realise, and the fall would have been big.

And lastly, you have a lot to learn to do research. When I finished my master's project, I thought I had done quite a few clever things; but also realised, with hindsight, that I had done a few pretty dumb things that I hope won't do again in the future (nothing bad, just a few weeks of wasted effort). A few months into my PhD project I look back and see other mistakes. Learning how to do research takes time, no matter how smart you are. Your undergrad will provide a low risk environment to make some of these beginner mistakes that will teach you a lot. I, for example, would be wary of paying someone that has not had this basic experience, because I will have to fund their mistakes.

All of these things you can, of course, circumvent without an undergrad; but I don't think it is a wise strategy to reject it up front. You don't know how a BSc is, and you don't even fully know yourself. My advise is that you take it easy, learn as much as possible, and see where it leads. You don't have to give up research, as you can always continue it while studying; and if you are truly natural at Maths, most of the coursework won't take long (and if it doesn't, maybe you were not so good on your own).

Lastly, a word of caution: I have seen some people who had done some research in High School drop off university because they wanted to do the "real stuff", and it turn out that the path there is rougher than it seems. They discovered the hard way that there are easy things you can do in the flashy parts of research; but you need much more to actually be able to fully do it on your own. Don't become one of them.

Davidmh
  • 21,215
  • 5
  • 60
  • 105
  • 1
    @MKR you can't judge a book by the cover, and you can't judge a several years degree by two lectures. There is much more to this, like interacting with your peers, teaching and learning from them, and learning how to get the most out of bad lecturers. – Davidmh Jun 15 '15 at 06:17
  • 1
    This is very true. I remember at the end of my bachelor's degree, I thought I was already a fantastic writer and researcher and thought that the PhD would just sharpen the skills a bit, so to speak. I learned SO much about research and writing in my PhD program, more than I ever realized I would. You don't know what you don't know. – roseofjuly Jul 20 '15 at 15:41
11

I want to answer this question from a different angle, by addressing two things you say in your original question that I think are untrue and kind of show why you need a broader education.

For one, you say that universities require you to take a lot of irrelevant classes to earn a degree (or at least that's what I think you are trying to say - part of my point). A lot of those classes you think are "irrelevant," though, are necessary to broaden your thinking and will make you into a more well-rounded professional researcher. At the most basic level, the way that mathematicians communicate with one another is through scientific journal articles. In order to do that, you need to know how to write well in English, and your university English and composition classes will assist you with that. Moreover, mathematics is often developed in hopes of applications to other fields - the sciences for sure, but also the social sciences - and an understanding of the conventions and needs of those fields will enrich your understanding of how mathematics ties the world together, even if you are interested in the purest of math. I didn't get a true appreciation of mathematics until I studied my own chosen field (psychology) more deeply.

Secondly, you espouse the idea that research can't be "frequently stopped by other irrelevant things." But the way research works in the modern world...it usually IS stopped by other irrelevant things - and relevant things too. Modern scientists spend a lot of time teaching classes, advising students, writing grants, and serving on committees in their field and at their university. No one is going to hire you to to purely be a mathematician and sit around and think 8-12 hours a day - you'll also have other tasks to complete. One of the values of formal education is that you learn how to balance all of these commitments and still think deeply and do great research. Creativity does require engrossment for some period of time, but most scholars have to stay productive over long periods of time while handling other responsibilities.

roseofjuly
  • 954
  • 4
  • 6
  • I had set the bounty for another answer, but I found esp. last paragraph of your answer more helpful and I highly appreciate it. :) – MKR Jul 25 '15 at 18:08
6

I would advise trying to complete qualifications like those in the UK. You can take A-levels without going to classes and with only minimal coursework. You could just take them without preparation to get a good high school level qualification. The next thing in the UK would be to get into a place like Oxford or Cambridge, you could do well in the STEP paper and get admitted. Then completing a maths degree at Oxbridge would be doable. The Oxford /Cambridge maths programs have very little in the way of compulsory course work. You could take the exams and work with world class researchers for the majority of the time.

In short, University courses with minimal compulsory class hours and course work do exist and you may be able to successfully complete these quickly and relatively painlessly.

Importantly taking some form of higher ed qualification will help you to gain respect and credibility when trying to publish or work with other mathematicians.

Stephanie
  • 1,234
  • 7
  • 12
2

First, I agree with many of the other answers that advocate for formal study to help you. And I would like to caution you against thinking that classrooms are entirely a waste of time. Far too often I've come up with novel solutions to problems specifically because I took an unrelated concept and applied it to the problem at hand. All education is beneficial.

All that said, there are a few careers I can think of that would value heavy math research (although not "pure" in the strictest sense):

  1. Finance - there is piles of research being done in finance to help produce better predictive analytics. It might be difficult to get your foot in the door there, but that sort of industry rewards success, and has a clear measurable way of evaluating it. If you can make people money, they won't care about your degree.
  2. Games - the gaming industry has a long track record of discounting degrees. There's also a good amount of work being done on algorithms here to better handle problems in rendering, network prediction, AI, etc.

Both of these options require application to some degree, even if the research itself is purer than most. For your situation, it is a benefit since your employers will care about results, not your educational background.

Telastyn
  • 793
  • 4
  • 8
1

Yes, you can do mathematic research on your own and without a formal education. There is a term for people who do such things. They're called autodidacts. Many great contributions can be attributed to such people. I could name many notable autodidacts but in relevancy to your question, Srinivasa Ramanuja, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Walter Pitts may provide inspiration.

My experience with self-learning began with aviation. Out of high school I wanted to learn to fly, but I couldn’t afford to go to a "pilot mill". I read the books and found a mentor. I would study at night and we would fly in the day. Eventually I made it to my commercial license, but decided airline piloting wasn't the career for me.

Then I decided to go to University for physics and engineering. I left after two years because of my frustrations with the system. I contacted companies like Dassault systems and Adobe and asked for student versions of their software. I acquired "less than authentic" versions of Comsol multi physics and Matlab. I read books and watched videos on YouTube and learned to use the software. Eventually I was proficient enough to get a mechanical/systems engineering job. I was able to get the job without a degree because I proved that I could do the job of several people. Progressively, I took on the roles of researcher, designer, engineer, and programmer. Now I both design and build the robotics for the purpose of manufacturing specialty custom products, and I love doing it.

Next, I began studying chemistry in my spare time. Again, I read the material and watched YouTube. I invested money and bought the equipment to build a laboratory. (This is the part when you’re usually told “don’t try this at home”… but all I will say is that curiosity can be as useful as it is precarious).

I'm 26 years old and I will be applying for my first patent in 2 days (self-drafted) and forming my own company all thanks to self-taught knowledge.

However, you should know that this path is not easy. It requires enormous dedication. Most nights I come home and teach myself what is required to succeed the next day. Add in family, friends, a significant other and life in general, and the pressure can build quite quickly. You have to stay positive. There are many times I've questioned taking the path less traveled as they say. There will likely be many zetetic influences, especially in the beginning of your endeavor. Social skeptics seem to be a universal constant.

One more thing worth noting - Always be open minded and on the lookout for mentors. I've had several mentors whom I learned a great deal from, and many of them entered my life unexpectedly.

So in conclusion, if you have the aptitude and the ambition then go for it, and give it your all. What's the worst that could happen? You may lose money? You may have to go back to school? But no matter what, you'll acquire new perspectives in life. You'll still net knowledge and neither of those can be can be considered a zero gain.

P.s.

Some relevant quotes:

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." ~ Albert Einstein

"I loved education, which is why I spent as little time as possible in school." ~ Karl Hess

"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." ~ Albert Einstein

“I have not trodden through the conventional regular course which is followed in a University course, but I am striking out a new path for myself. I have made a special investigation of divergent series in general and the results I get are termed by the local mathematicians as startling." ~ Srinivasa Ramanujan

Ununoctium
  • 47
  • 2
  • 12
    On the other hand, you are probably not Ramanujan. – JeffE Jun 09 '15 at 22:00
  • 1
    Well that's one way to look at it. The old Occam's razor approach. Best not start making assumptions leading to one individual out of some many having high potential. However, I've always been more fond of newtons flaming laser sword. Not only does it have a much cooler name but the ultimate burden of proof is with MKR. – Ununoctium Jun 10 '15 at 03:46
  • At any rate, I think that MKR's initial inquiry is a wonderful question in general. Even if situations like his/her are not wide spread at the moment, I'm inclined to believe it will be a cause célèbre in the near future. The current higher education system (at least in the U.S,) is in certain ways reminiscent of the events leading to the French Revolution. I hope my former correlation isn't taken to strongly. I'm only saying that if scientific progression is possible in unconventional ways we should not suppress them. Who knows, peer discussions like these could become increasingly useful. – Ununoctium Jun 10 '15 at 12:09
  • 4
    You do understand that those Youtube videos you watched for chemistry or the chemistry books you read, were actually prepared by people with university degrees or higher and not some unknown experimenting on their mother's basement. That alone proves that university education works (even if it did not work for you) since it makes people capable of passing knowledge even through books or videos. – Alexandros Jun 10 '15 at 19:17
  • @Alexandros I agree with you. That is proof that the status quo works for the bulk of the population. I appreciate how well university education has worked for our society as a whole. Then again gas lamps worked just fine until electric lighting. ; ) I'm just messing around, that analogy is extreme. I posted in this thread because I've seen people struggle in traditional education because of the system not their intelligence. We live in the age of information, the tools are available, so for some people it makes since to avoid the politics, bureaucracy, and crippling cost of college. – Ununoctium Jun 10 '15 at 22:16
  • 6
    @CaptainCodeman Of course! And I'm sure many people did tell him just that. But that doesn't contradict the fact that most people that idiots on the internet say will never amount to anything are not actually under-appreciated world-class genius autodidacts. – JeffE Jun 11 '15 at 01:42
  • 5
    None of your examples are modern. –  Jun 11 '15 at 15:40
  • 4
    @JeffE But what then is the point of making a statistical point? Your marriage will probably fail, if it hasn't already. Furthermore, as you yourself admit that any successful person would ignore comments such as yours, why put yourself in a position where only idiots will listen to you? – CaptainCodeman Jun 11 '15 at 16:29
  • 6
    @CaptainCodeman I am not arguing that he probably won't be successful mathematician. I am arguing that he is probably not a once-in-a-century under-appreciated world-class genius autodidact. Surely the difference is obvious. Even if you are good at soccer, but you are probably not Lionel Messi. – JeffE Jun 12 '15 at 13:12
  • 4
    17th-century mathematicians operating under completely different circumstances are not good examples, and the reason Pitts and Ramanujan are famous is because they are rare. Chances are really, really good that the OP is not some genius autodidact - and even if he is, things have changed enough that he still probably won't be taken very seriously. Besides, Ramanujan lived in poverty and Pitts had patrons. – roseofjuly Jul 20 '15 at 15:49
1

You need a Bachelors degree. Having worked in government labs (USA) there are many researchers that have a BS in math, physics, or engineering, and nothing beyond that. (It doesn't work like that for chemistry or biology, generally.)

You shouldn't focus so much on the education... the true purposes are 1) clear the minimum hurdle of the bureaucracy in order to apply for the job you want 2) prove to the employeer that you're valuable. The BS in Math can do both of those things. It's essentially impossible to do that without some kind of certification.

...enrollment in universities which costs A LOT for just BSc...

That's what loans are for. Again referencing those government labs: I may be green with envy, but some of those people were hideously overpaid. You'll have no problem paying off the loan, even if you don't receive a scholarship.

If you really want to avoid school, there are 1) accelerated programs 2) internship programs for credit while you're doing your degree 3) if you become well-liked by a professor, there are normally directed research credits you can take (so you can avoid class). I did all of these.

userABC123
  • 181
  • 8
-4

The degree isn't a big issue as you think it is. Just continue studying math on your own. When you've mastered most of the math curriculum, you just contact some university and ask if you can do fast track exams for most subjects. If you show some exceptional talent in some subject, then you'll likely catch the attention of some professor, who will put severe pressure on you to become his/her Ph.D student. You'll produce a lot of work together, you'll travel all around the World, visiting many conferences where you present your work.

Count Iblis
  • 3,711
  • 11
  • 14
  • 28
    You have seen too many times the "Good Will Hunting" movie. The world does not work like that. – Alexandros Jun 09 '15 at 18:04
  • 3
    This can happen, but it is significantly more complex than this really. In particular, most potential prodigies who intentionally seek to avoid the normal flow of things rarely make it. Yes, nontraditional approaches can work out, but they must be done very carefully, if the individual really wants to have a chance to make an impact. – Andrew Krause Jun 09 '15 at 18:05
  • 1
    But what I'm suggesting is petty much the normal flow for students who are far ahead (unlike what the OP suggests he/she should do). You just study and sit the exams ahead of time. This is not the same as working on your own completely outside the system. Universities will usually help students who are far ahead to get the most out of their talents. – Count Iblis Jun 09 '15 at 18:51
  • 1
    The normal flow when it works out, yes. But it is difficult to get people's attention simply on the claim that you are good without first being part of some program, or having some independent result. Yes, an undergraduate student who challenges a graduate course or otherwise clearly demonstrates their abilities can often be spotted, but the vast majority of emails people get of the form, "I am good at mathematics" are cranks or otherwise useless. They tend to never be read or responded to. What I am suggesting is that this flow of things does work, but your answer really needs specifics. – Andrew Krause Jun 09 '15 at 19:08
  • 10
    But what I'm suggesting is petty much the normal flow for students who are far ahead — [citation needed] Speaking as someone who was far ahead, and who now holds a faculty position... No, it really is not. – JeffE Jun 09 '15 at 22:02
  • 1
    All I'm saying is that the OP could continue studying on his/her own while he/she isn't at university anyway. – Count Iblis Jun 09 '15 at 23:45
  • 16
    The problem with this answer (in my opinion, obviously) is not so much that what it describes cannot be done but rather that what it describes is an unnecessarily difficult path to the goal. It's kind of like saying "Don't worry if the idea of buying a car fills you with dread. You can learn to design and build your own car from scratch!" True but...not easier, except under a very specific set of edge conditions that probably deserve to be addressed directly. – Pete L. Clark Jun 10 '15 at 05:06
  • 1
    But the OP is only 15, so he/she has plenty of time to study on his/her own. It would be different if the OP were 18. When I was 12 I started to study math from university books at my own pace. That helped me to both develop my talents and stay well ahead which gave me a lot more options later (e.g. I was free to go on vacation whenever I wanted). Also, by challenging yourself at your level, you avoid the pitfall of getting used to doing work well below your level. Later in life that can lead to failure. That's why I think the OP should work hard on math now and not worry about the degree.. – Count Iblis Jun 10 '15 at 16:36
  • 2
    Later in life that can lead to failure. — First, 18 is not "later in life", except in the most literal sense. Second, failure is underrated. – JeffE Jun 11 '15 at 01:44
  • @JeffE – Are you saying that it is good to fail? – Adam Mosheh Jun 11 '15 at 18:18
  • 3
    @AdamMosheh Yes, I am saying it's good to fail. – JeffE Jun 12 '15 at 13:08