3 ms·
>Doing a PhD in the UK helps, in and out before the funding dries up in 3-4 years is expected along with no class requirements and no masters needed (can go in
by throwawayaway12 9y ago
>Doing a PhD in the UK helps, in and out before the funding dries up in 3-4 years is expected along with no class requirements and no masters needed (can go in straight from Bachelors)
I think this is the key sentence for a US perspective. 2 years of course work + 3 years of research for 5 years total is common in STEM fields.
- eanzenberg 9y agoYeah, unless you are at Cambridge or Oxford, getting a PhD in Europe about equates to a masters in the US.
- joncrocks 9y agoCould you explain what you mean? In terms of time spent? Level of knowledge in the subject area?
- kchoudhu 9y agoAmericans tend to look down on anyone who has a doctorate from anywhere in Europe that isn't Oxford or Cambridge. I'm not sure it's justified, but there you go.
- chrisseaton 9y agoIf you spent seven years doing something someone else did in three you're be bitter about it as well :) I think the European approach is proved sound, since people do managed to produce top-tier publications in that time.
- ylem 9y agoI think the question is rather they are equivalent. For example, let's suppose someone does a quick PhD in 3 years, no masters, then all things being equal, they are likely to have less breadth than someone who took say 6 years (including masters). Exceptions abound. A rather difficult study might be to see how many postdocs a person with a 3 year PhD does compared to one with a longer PhD, or survivorship, but teasing out other factors would be a nightmare.
- noir_lord 9y agoETH Zurich would like a word with those folks. It's the first university I think off for engineering, I mean they have 20 odd Nobel prizes from students and profs. Not to mention the hundred or so other world class universities.
- Osmium 9y ago> Americans tend to look down on anyone who has a doctorate from anywhere in Europe that isn't Oxford or Cambridge. Look, this just isn't true. I've heard it repeated a lot online, but I've never encountered it myself. For context, I have a UK PhD, not from Oxford or Cambridge, and I got hired as a postdoc in a top-10 school in the US doing really exciting research. There are differences between PhDs in US and the UK and Europe, but the differences are complex... there's no clear answer that one is better over the other. It's a little unfortunate, because I've known Americans who were put off a UK-based PhD because they think professors look down on them, but I've seen little evidence to back it up. My colleagues come from all over the world, and they're all super smart, and everyone's treated equally and with respect. When it comes down to it, the quality of your research, and your ability to work hard, is far more important than what country or institution you're from. (There are also a lot of anecdotes out there... in this thread, someone who completed early (congrats btw!), someone else with 20+ papers... you can be guaranteed there are people reading this thread who might be discouraged reading this. The one unifying factor with PhDs is that personal experience is highly variable, and artificial targets (finish in x years with y papers etc.) do not correlate with later success or the value of your research. So for anyone still slogging through who's reading this, good luck!)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- vazamb 9y agoAt least in Germany you need a masters to start a PhD and I think this is true for most of Europe. Actually, I always thought America is one of the few countries where you can start a PhD right out of undergrad.
- ylem 9y agoThis is true in physics--I never bothered to get a masters along the route to getting my PhD
- nolite 9y agoHave you done PhD level research in either continent? This is utter horseshit...
- eanzenberg 9y agoYes!