3 ms·

What's interesting is that you point these out as good examples, but in Europe these would typically be seen as evidence of supervisor malfeasance, or at least

by mjn 13y ago

What's interesting is that you point these out as good examples, but in Europe these would typically be seen as evidence of supervisor malfeasance, or at least raise some eyebrows. If a student you're supervising has published this many articles in top journals and conferences in the field, has been in grad school for 4+ years, and has still not graduated, someone is going to wonder: why not? They clearly are both smart and accomplished enough to have graduated. So why haven't they? Are you milking them as low-paid labor instead of letting them graduate? Are you taking up all their time with grant projects unrelated to their dissertation, so they haven't had a chance to finish it? Etc. Questions get asked! The idea is that the top grad student shouldn't be above a certain threshold, because if they are, they should have a Ph.D., not be artificially held back.

joshvm 13y ago
Interesting to note that in the UK it is now routine for there to be a four year deadline on PhD students. Where I work, instrumentation people were routinely finishing late because they were enjoying the lifestyle a bit too much. They're trying to streamline the system a lot. We now have to jump through a lot of hoops - 9 month, 12 month, 18 month review panels. It's a pain, but it's obvious they're trying to make sure you don't spend a year in write-up mode. They absolutely want you through the system, because if you don't finish on time, the department gets a funding cut. And actually you make a good point. In the UK, PhD students are fairly well paid. I'm on a CASE program and make around £17k a year tax free (outside London). The nominal wage is £13.5k for outside London (£15.5 inside). We're treated like research staff and not cheap labour.
mtdewcmu 13y ago
That's kind of curious logic. If a student is so accomplished that it's plainly obvious to everybody that they deserve a PhD, then the degree itself is just a formality. What's stopping that student from leaving, if they want to? I'm sure it makes sense in the context of European academia, which illuminates the contrast with the US.

by mjn 13y ago

joshvm 13y ago

Interesting to note that in the UK it is now routine for there to be a four year deadline on PhD students. Where I work, instrumentation people were routinely finishing late because they were enjoying the lifestyle a bit too much. They're trying to streamline the system a lot. We now have to jump through a lot of hoops - 9 month, 12 month, 18 month review panels. It's a pain, but it's obvious they're trying to make sure you don't spend a year in write-up mode. They absolutely want you through the system, because if you don't finish on time, the department gets a funding cut. And actually you make a good point. In the UK, PhD students are fairly well paid. I'm on a CASE program and make around £17k a year tax free (outside London). The nominal wage is £13.5k for outside London (£15.5 inside). We're treated like research staff and not cheap labour.

mtdewcmu 13y ago

That's kind of curious logic. If a student is so accomplished that it's plainly obvious to everybody that they deserve a PhD, then the degree itself is just a formality. What's stopping that student from leaving, if they want to? I'm sure it makes sense in the context of European academia, which illuminates the contrast with the US.