FAO PhD folk

A lot of abstract high-level academic maths and science is done because people want to win a Fields Medal or Nobel Prize. The motivation is to solve a puzzle, add to the giant abstract-logical 'framework' of the field, or gain recognition and acclaim from their peers. This is a side to research that you don't get in the arts/humanities so much :p It's not so much of a competition. Just further nuances to debunk this whole 'science research is worth every penny and money for poetry and philosophy is for hippies' nonsense.

Good post anyway, +1 everything you said.
 
I don't know why a grown man keeps feeling the need to be so pathetic.

"Only a masters candidate" --> accepted by Oxford tutor and told college for DPhil study.

SNIP

At a higher degree level (M.Sc, D.Phil, Ph.D) the institution in which you undertake the research rarely has any effect on its prestige... That comes with the laboratory you work in (in science, and I can only comment on this section) and whom your supervisors are. So no need to boast about being accepted to Oxford ;) although I'm not sure if you do Science, which in that case, you may boast :p or you may not... I don't know :(

Back to the OP, doing a PhD is nothing like being in industry... no idea where you go that idea from. They are completely different, with industry being much easier and better paid than academia (I thought this was a common fact :p )
 
At a higher degree level (M.Sc, D.Phil, Ph.D) the institution in which you undertake the research rarely has any effect on its prestige... That comes with the laboratory you work in (in science, and I can only comment on this section) and whom your supervisors are. So no need to boast about being accepted to Oxford ;) although I'm not sure if you do Science, which in that case, you may boast :p or you may not... I don't know :(

Back to the OP, doing a PhD is nothing like being in industry... no idea where you go that idea from. They are completely different, with industry being much easier and better paid than academia (I thought this was a common fact :p )

It definitely matters in arts/humanities, with a few 'modern' exceptions. It's a very traditional, ivory-tower type environment, and there's a massive over-supply of post-docs looking for work. Plus the fact that most 'traditional' academic subjects in the arts/humanities obviously happen to have the best academic environments/departments in the old universities.

Besides I wasn't meaning to brag anyway, there's nothing really noteworthy in being accepted for a PhD in any of the top30 universities. If you're into your subject enough and have researched your department/supervisor enough, you should get in. Getting funding and winning that 1:150 lottery is the real achievement (which in the arts and humanities tends to give a massive boost to your career/future funding prospects, also). This will be my second full-scholarship in a row, which is something I am quite proud of. So nur nur nur, etc.etc.
 
I see the personal jibes are starting already...;)

To the OP- I think you need to have a serous think about doing a PhD if you think "a PhD is the equivalent as working in the industry" . That is a seriously flawed opinion and the wrong attitude.

Saying that sometimes the inverse can eb true, I finished my Phd and I am now working industry, I still do research almost all day, read articles, I hope to publish results (after the patents are written), we have weekly meetings discussing research, and my work environment is actually far more relaxed than when I did my PhD (my PhD had 9-6 face time, I only a have a 11-4 face time now!). The difference is I work 40-50 hours a week compared to 60-70, I never work weekends, I earn a decent salary, and a load of company perks (bi-weekly massages, bonuses, stock options, etc.) and don't have to deal with students unless I want to (I am supervising some master students at the local state university).


With regards to pay, in the UK you will find it pretty much fixed, sometimes you can have a higher annual stipend but that includes required teaching hours, other places will be lower but teaching is paid on top.

In the rest of the world there are much larger variances in stipends between universities, and even within labs the same university. Where I did my PhD (EPFL, Switzerland) there were basically 2 levels of pay, 75% and 100%. The idea being that most people get paid at the 75% level and those that hold additional responsibilities (Sys Admin, additional teaching load beyond the requisite, if the prof has some personal project they want you to work on outside of your PhD) then you would get 100%. However, profs were free to select a 75% or 100% as they wish, some labs would just give everyone 100%, others would give everyone 75% regardless of additional work. The 100% pay scale was supposedly equivalent to industry standard for having BSc/MSc.

At current exchange rates I was paid over £40,000 at the 75% level

A word of warning though, it is clear form previous discussions on OCUK that many people doing a PhD in the UK appear to have a far easier time with far less additional responsibilities and a subsequent reduction in work hours per week. Personally, reflecting back on my PhD I actually highly value the additional extraneous work, at this moment on screen I have a patent application I'm writing (helped on several in my PhD), next week I am meeting with some venture capitalists to help my CEO talk them into giving us $10million (I helped write several multimillion euro project proposals during my PhD, and helped explain to EU bureaucrats why the millions they spent on our project was well invested).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom