That just doesn't seem right. If so few people are finishing their PhD then the University/Supervisor is doing something seriously wrong.
Is my PhD supervisor taking the ****?
- Thread starter OpenToSuggestions
- Start date
That just doesn't seem right. If so few people are finishing their PhD then the University/Supervisor is doing something seriously wrong.
5-8 years for a PhD?! It just doesn't take that long. The UK norm for a full time PhD is 3-4 years. I am not suprised it took longer if you did 35 hours working on top of 35 hours PhD.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,052
Yea the USA is very different to the UK. The UK has a much higher base standard of academia entry and teaching so a PhD can be 2-4 years and doesn't need to be any longer and it certainly isn't a lower standard. Friend of mine did it in 2 years (looking at road surfacing and dry friction coefficents for newly laid surfaces). He put in the hours and knew his stuff.
The USA system is very different esp in terms of graduating through the stages of the PhD and even entry to their gradschool system. It appears much more elitist.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,969
Offer to make up the time outside of the usual 9-5. I was very lucky that my supervisor didn't care as long as I got the work done. Some semesters I managed about 4 or so days of undergrad teaching 
Finished within 4 years too. Could have finished earlier, but was contracted to do extra teaching nd to lead courses.
Finished within 4 years too. Could have finished earlier, but was contracted to do extra teaching nd to lead courses.
My supervisor is insistant on 3 years. I am a warden (3 of us plus 1 'main' warden for 300 students) so I get a free flat and food. I am in no rush to break my neck and do it in 3 years but I certainly don't want it to take forever!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,969
I did that too, was called a resident tutor where I was. Still managed. Being woken up at 4am certainly made giving lectures more difficult though! 3 years is possible, but like you say, no rush
Soldato
Wow... That is brutal - and a million miles away from my own personal experience.
In the six years I've been at the University now (first as a PhD student then as a post-doc in Engineering) I've only known two people not to complete their PhD course, and that must be out of somewhere in the region of 50 - 100.
One was a guy who disappeared back to Singapore for four months without telling his supervisor or replying to emails. He didn't make it past his first year review.
The other was a Greek guy who was really not too bright (comparatively), but thought that everything he did was pure and undiluted genius. He got through to his viva, but failed. He was told that he could have an MPhil, but instead he decided to take the route of complaint letters and hour-long rage rants. Unsurprisingly this got him precisely nowhere, especially because his supervisor had warned him for months that he would fail unless he made massive changes (which he dismissed as "idiotic suggestions from a senile moron").
Anyway, I just can't relate to these statistics at all. A THIRD of engineering students haven't completed their course after ten years?! TEN YEARS?! At Nottingham there is a strict four-year hand in. If you don't hand in within four years (to the day) then you simply aren't allowed to submit. I know someone that managed to get a two week extension due to the amount of University-level sport he did, but an extra seven years?! Is this normal practice at other Universities?
I've seen plenty of students who were either incapable or unwilling to work at the level expected of PhD students, but (aside from the two I mentioned above) they all came through the process eventually - most of them carried by their supervisors, and all within the four year window.
I wasn't trying to make fun of you -- I thought I'd try to inject a little light-hardheartedness into the conversation. I don't think I nailed it though!
Ahaaaa -- this makes me understand your position a little better. Unfortunately what you've said here isn't true. It's not even a little bit true! There is a huge spectrum of ability out there. From a local perspective a lot of these things might look super-dooper, but from a global point of view they're pretty insignificant. Getting a first means you were better than lots of people on your course at your University. Getting a PhD means you were able to solve problems given to you by your supervisor and convinced some examiners you knew what you were talking about. [I'm condensing here, obviously!]
I wish it were true that there was some small list of tick boxes meant all were created equal (or approximately equal) when entering the world of academic research after a PhD. If it were true, I'd be as good as say, Terry Tao, when he was my age. Or perhaps not quite as good, but at least "at a similar level of excellency". The fact is, I'm not. I'm not even in the same league. I'm not even on the same planet. More than that -- there's a shed load of people filling up the spectrum between him and I! Luckily for me this doesn't mean I have to cry myself to sleep at night, because I'm also aware there's at least a few people out there that I'm a little better than.
If you want to gain a research position at a top academic department (at least those I'm familiar with), then you need to be able to convince the people there that you're fairly far along this spectrum of ability when it comes to your subject. The best way to do that is to produce high quality research and make sure people know about it.
Exactly my thoughts.
The transfer process in the UK is aimed at weeding out those who aren't doing work of a PhD level, or those who won't be able to maintain a high level over the rest of their degree. That being said, very few people fail to transfer and as far as I'm aware only one girl sadly had to write up an MPhil as she couldn't recruit enough patients for her PhD study!.
Once you get to your PhD viva, you're extremely unlikely to fail (I believe the pass rate at Peninsula Medical School is above 99%). It sounds like the US system is to take on as many students as possible and let the weaker candidates drop out :/
Associate
Personally, I think the whole process in the UK is broken. It is much too easy to get a PhD and conversely, very easy to fail all depending on who your viva examiner is. I have seen dreadful students with an A-level understanding of science pass and reasonably good students fail. I hate to say, but there is also a trend to allow lower standards for overseas students from third world countries.
In response to a comment above, the length of a PhD depends on country - I’m told by people who studied there that American PhDs can be anywhere from 5 years to 10 years.
It feels apt to show a figure from Phdcomics:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1060
The actual figures on the left are true figures despite the humerous intention of the strip.
I would actually be surprised if professors can spend 18% of their time researching, in my experience it is probably less than 5%. Anyway, even given these figures, a suitable candidate for a professorship will have to be able to do significant teaching and service work (i.e. getting funding or organizing conferences, editorial work) which will comprise 82% of their time. Therefore these are skills which will be of high importance so it stands to reason to start learning these skills as early as possible in your academic a career.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1060
The actual figures on the left are true figures despite the humerous intention of the strip.
I would actually be surprised if professors can spend 18% of their time researching, in my experience it is probably less than 5%. Anyway, even given these figures, a suitable candidate for a professorship will have to be able to do significant teaching and service work (i.e. getting funding or organizing conferences, editorial work) which will comprise 82% of their time. Therefore these are skills which will be of high importance so it stands to reason to start learning these skills as early as possible in your academic a career.
Indeed there is much broken with the PhD process in the UK when viewed at a world wide level but I feel that discussing that will take the thread even further off topic.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 1,701
Guess i'll contribute because I'm a first year PhD student in Physics.
Me and my supervisor are pretty chill. All the work I get given is quite clearly intended to improve my skills (I need to construct a sample mount at the moment).
I find reading a lot of papers quite sleep inducing because I basically don't care that much. But I'm writing my six month report at the moment and I'm finding them a lot more interesting now because I see where the information is relevant.
I also do most of my experimental work overseas in Asia (where I probably work about 20 hours a day).
Me and my supervisor are pretty chill. All the work I get given is quite clearly intended to improve my skills (I need to construct a sample mount at the moment).
I find reading a lot of papers quite sleep inducing because I basically don't care that much. But I'm writing my six month report at the moment and I'm finding them a lot more interesting now because I see where the information is relevant.
I also do most of my experimental work overseas in Asia (where I probably work about 20 hours a day).
This is like my PhD, I turn up when I want, do experiments I devise, buy my own stuff, go home when I want.
I really have the easy life.
Best part is, if there is a problem with anything, as my supervisor is top dog, I tell him and he sorts it almost immediately.