6 ms·

Note that there is a huge difference between the UK PhD and the US PhD process. In the UK you are left to your own devices for 3 years, and only find out if th

by 10dpd 14y ago

Note that there is a huge difference between the UK PhD and the US PhD process. In the UK you are left to your own devices for 3 years, and only find out if the external examiner even approves of your research questions in the one and only final verbal exam. It is up to you alone to ensure the research is valid and makes a contribution. US PhD candidates have a lot more guidance and handholding that includes 4 years of structured training, followed by the presentation of a research plan that is signed off by examiners before any research is begun so there are no surprises in the final examination.

kd0amg 14y ago
4 years of structured training, followed by the presentation of a research plan that is signed off by examiners before any research is begun so there are no surprises in the final examination. And ideally, this plan has been discussed at length with the advisor before the formal proposal happens.
mcguire 14y ago
Thanks for pointing this out. Just a few paragraphs into the article, I was thinking the author had done a spectacularly bad job of picking an adviser (or supervisor). In my experience, "meaningful intermediate goals" and feedback are the reason for having an adviser. Not to say that all advisers are very good at providing goals and feedback, though.
ricw 14y ago
At good uk universities you get excellent guidance, with multiple intermittent milestones and ongoing scrutinisation of your progress. Unless you pick a rubbish supervisor who simply doesn't care. Though I only can speak of Oxford..
- jb17 14y ago
  It's also important to note that the supervising culture varies a lot between subjects. Computer scientists are usually spoiled by good supervision, but in the humanities you might see your supervisor only twice a year.. (and I do know people in Oxford in that situation).
  - kscaldef 14y ago
    I think it's also worth saying that phrasing it as "picking a rubbish superviser" puts an unfair blame on the student. By the time you realize your advisor is neglectful, or incompetent as a teacher, or actually neglectful, you might be a year or more down a research path. There might not be another professor at your school qualified and willing to supervise your research. The choice at that point, whether to tough it out or to throw away all your progress up to that point, is an incredibly difficult one. (FWIW, my advisor in theoretical physics was merely neglectful. Almost all of my friend in an experimental field had advisors who bordered on abusive.)
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
liedra 14y ago
This is a failing of your supervisor and university if you have this experience in a UK university. I'm currently supervising PhD students at De Montfort University and we are required by the university to have AT LEAST monthly meetings with our students (usually 2-3 supervisors per student too). We support our students with seminar and theoretical workshop series, and encourage and support our particularly promising students to produce papers and submit them to conferences and journals. There is a LOT of hand holding that goes on in our PhD programme. But your mileage may vary. I've heard that Russell Group universities can be a particularly mixed bag in this regard, but academics at other universities without such big names have more to gain by supporting our students.
thisone 14y ago
I believe what you're referring to is this, taken from the University of York Computer Science PhD pages: "Please note also that all Research students embarking on a PhD programme are initially enrolled provisionally for that qualification. It is the responsibility of the student’s Thesis Advisory Panel to recommend whether or not the student’s enrolment for the PhD should be confirmed (consideration & confirmation takes place within 2 years for full time students and four years for part time students). Confirmations are approved by the University's Standing Committee on Assessment. For more information please contact" Which, standing on it's own, sounds a bit frightening, but when read in context, you see that students are not left to their own devices or 2-4 years: http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/postgraduate/research-degrees/phd/ http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/postgraduate/research-degrees/phd/
xtracto 14y ago
I did my PhD in Comp.Sci. at the University of Liverpool. It lasted 3.8 months (as I took more time to write my thesis in English). At the end of each year my progress was reviewed in several way (a 1 on 1 interview with a thesis advisor, a departmental presentation, etc). I had the best supervisors I could ask for (yeah I got two of them). Every week (first year) or every two weeks (second year) I met with them to discuss about my progress. Shit, they even helped me on the "culture shock" of a Mexican living in the UK (and coping with the heavy NW accent). Moreover, one of my supervisors invited me to join a EPSRC project which led me to work (in my own chosen subject) with great scholars from different parts of the UK ( and form people from the industry. Although I have a great experience during my PhD and in the 3 years postdoc I did in Germany, I decided academia was not for me. I got tired of the "publish or perish" part , and I decided to pursue my real passion: programming software.

by 10dpd 14y ago

kd0amg 14y ago

4 years of structured training, followed by the presentation of a research plan that is signed off by examiners before any research is begun so there are no surprises in the final examination. And ideally, this plan has been discussed at length with the advisor before the formal proposal happens.

mcguire 14y ago

Thanks for pointing this out. Just a few paragraphs into the article, I was thinking the author had done a spectacularly bad job of picking an adviser (or supervisor). In my experience, "meaningful intermediate goals" and feedback are the reason for having an adviser. Not to say that all advisers are very good at providing goals and feedback, though.

ricw 14y ago

At good uk universities you get excellent guidance, with multiple intermittent milestones and ongoing scrutinisation of your progress. Unless you pick a rubbish supervisor who simply doesn't care. Though I only can speak of Oxford..

jb17 14y ago
It's also important to note that the supervising culture varies a lot between subjects. Computer scientists are usually spoiled by good supervision, but in the humanities you might see your supervisor only twice a year.. (and I do know people in Oxford in that situation).
- kscaldef 14y ago
  I think it's also worth saying that phrasing it as "picking a rubbish superviser" puts an unfair blame on the student. By the time you realize your advisor is neglectful, or incompetent as a teacher, or actually neglectful, you might be a year or more down a research path. There might not be another professor at your school qualified and willing to supervise your research. The choice at that point, whether to tough it out or to throw away all your progress up to that point, is an incredibly difficult one. (FWIW, my advisor in theoretical physics was merely neglectful. Almost all of my friend in an experimental field had advisors who bordered on abusive.)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

liedra 14y ago

This is a failing of your supervisor and university if you have this experience in a UK university. I'm currently supervising PhD students at De Montfort University and we are required by the university to have AT LEAST monthly meetings with our students (usually 2-3 supervisors per student too). We support our students with seminar and theoretical workshop series, and encourage and support our particularly promising students to produce papers and submit them to conferences and journals. There is a LOT of hand holding that goes on in our PhD programme. But your mileage may vary. I've heard that Russell Group universities can be a particularly mixed bag in this regard, but academics at other universities without such big names have more to gain by supporting our students.

thisone 14y ago

I believe what you're referring to is this, taken from the University of York Computer Science PhD pages: "Please note also that all Research students embarking on a PhD programme are initially enrolled provisionally for that qualification. It is the responsibility of the student’s Thesis Advisory Panel to recommend whether or not the student’s enrolment for the PhD should be confirmed (consideration & confirmation takes place within 2 years for full time students and four years for part time students). Confirmations are approved by the University's Standing Committee on Assessment. For more information please contact" Which, standing on it's own, sounds a bit frightening, but when read in context, you see that students are not left to their own devices or 2-4 years: http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/postgraduate/research-degrees/phd/ http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/postgraduate/research-degrees/phd/

xtracto 14y ago

I did my PhD in Comp.Sci. at the University of Liverpool. It lasted 3.8 months (as I took more time to write my thesis in English). At the end of each year my progress was reviewed in several way (a 1 on 1 interview with a thesis advisor, a departmental presentation, etc). I had the best supervisors I could ask for (yeah I got two of them). Every week (first year) or every two weeks (second year) I met with them to discuss about my progress. Shit, they even helped me on the "culture shock" of a Mexican living in the UK (and coping with the heavy NW accent). Moreover, one of my supervisors invited me to join a EPSRC project which led me to work (in my own chosen subject) with great scholars from different parts of the UK ( and form people from the industry. Although I have a great experience during my PhD and in the 3 years postdoc I did in Germany, I decided academia was not for me. I got tired of the "publish or perish" part , and I decided to pursue my real passion: programming software.