Tell me about PhD's, please.

In My Humble Opinion
21

Two more things to consider:

  1. It’s a good idea to find out as much as you can about your lab’s finances. In my department, anyone whose lab doesn’t pull in its own grants is stuck teaching for the entire term of their grad student career. Teaching can be a really good experience, actually–I’ve really enjoyed most of my teaching. But it does mean that your degree will require a lot more time from you. Most of the RAs I know are essentially getting paid to do their own research, which means they’re not spending a ton of time each week in front of blackboards and heaps of student exams. RAs tend to get through much more quickly, and they tend to publish more.

It’s a good idea to aim for an RA, rather than a TA. Since, IME, only relatively wealthy labs offer RAs, working in a rich lab is almost always better than working in a poor one. Don’t assume that all the labs within a single department or program are funded equally. Where I am, one lab can be rolling in money while another is having problems paying for its greenhouse space.

  1. If you’re offered a TA, find out what the experience of being a TA is like for people in that department. I don’t know if TAs have a lot of rights as workers in the UK, or if there’s a contract that specifies stuff like how many hours a week you work, etc. I know that, in the US, schools with unionized TAs tend to have much better working conditions and pay than schools without TA unions.

Some people get really wonderful TA or GA positions, with great bosses, limited working hours, and excellently-run courses they can support wholeheartedly. But some people don’t.

I’m a TA. I’m very passionate about my subject, and I’ve had a great time sharing what I know of my subject with my students. But I have no contract. I certainly have no real protection if I complain about any unfairness in my job, either. Supposedly, we TAs work 20 hours a week in return for our waiver and stipend. Right now, that sounds like a pipe dream. I’ve worked a minimum of 30 hours a week, on average, as a TA during my time here. There have been times when I’ve worked 40 hours a week on grading alone, when that was only one of my responsibilities as a TA. It’s very easy to end up working more or less full-time for peanuts. And, of course, even if you’re putting in tons of hours in teaching, your advisor, committee, and dept. chair will demand to see progress that’s not much less than that of people on RAs.

I’m not saying all this stuff because I feel like ranting about being a grad student. There are parts of it that I love and would never want to give up. I’m learning a lot, and I’ll be able to make that experience count for me in getting a job that I love later on. And I know that some people have truly wonderful experiences as grad students. I don’t want to discourage anyone from looking into grad studies, but I think that anyone who does so has to look long and hard to make sure that they’re entering a program that’s really going to work well for them.

22

Just a point re TAs versus RAs:

Here in the UK, all grad students are primarily research assistants. The research councils hire you to do just that – research. However, since most uni departments wouldn’t get by without grad students teaching, research councils set a maximum limit on how many hours of teaching you can do per week, generally about 6, which your department pays you extra for. Essentially, we have no distinction between RA and TA.

23

Angua–all right. Apparently I am (or was, at least) completely ignorant about the UK grad school experience.

Sorry for wasting everyone’s time.

I am completely jealous of all you UK academic types, though. I have to find some way to do a doctorate across the pond, rather than keeping on with my studies here.

24

I wouldn’t be. Once you get your doctorate, the pay is far better in the States than over here.

If you seriously want to do a PhD over here, then I’d start looking for scholarships/studentships, but of course it depends on your field – try jobs.ac.uk for starting points. The main application process starts around now or December-ish, and you’d start in October.

25

I had a look at the Manchester robotics page and, frankly, I’m not too impressed. The staff consists of one lecturer, one RA and 4 PhDs. They publish about 2 journal papers and 5 conference papers a year which is about standard and they have pretty much only a single project that’s actively going. In robotics, Oxford has a fantastic program. Birmingham also has a very good one. I’m not too sure about any others but I think nottingham might also be decent and possibly Bristol.

Really, the letter of reccomendation isn’t all that important anymore since the trend is for everybody to give glowing ones. Unless you have phenomenal ones, It can only really hurt you if a) you get a bad one or b) you don’t get one from your honours supervisor.

Luckily for you, I did my honours in the robotics department of one of the top universities in the world for robotics (although more on the robot vision side than the mechanics). You should definately think about taking a few months exchange to a university on the continent. There’s a lot of good work being done in France and Germany in robotics.

26

And I’ll wager that both of them didn’t get a Masters first. :wink:

Since the thread is slightly morphing into a discussion of the differences between the US and UK systems, I’ll throw in a few additional, rather commonplace, observations.
British undergraduate degrees tend to be more specialised than their US counterparts - and indeed the whole British educational system has traditionally tended to force people to specialise from about the age of 15-16. That then helps people to dive straight into research having completed their undergraduate degree. Though the pattern in recent years has shifted towards them being encouraged to do an additional year’s Masters between the two.
There’s also a - probably justified - view on both sides of the Atlantic that British Ph.D. survivors are somewhat less experienced than their US counterparts. The natural abilities to attain either are much the same, but the newly-minted US Ph.D. will be that couple of years older and will have been exposed to the field for that bit longer, which can make a big difference at that age.

27

On the number of years hijack: I know a guy who got his PhD in CS in two years with no prior CS background at all. But he did have a PhD in Math. OTOH he didn’t do his CS PhD in Theory. OTOOH he did it in logic & AI. If had any background in CS at all he could have done it in a year and half.

28

Quick question: How are older applicants viewed by those who review the applications? I’ve been out of academia for a view years; I’m currently a software engineer, but I’m seriously thinking of going back to school to pursue a PhD.

29

I recently began a Ph.D. program in a hard science. (no terminal master’s degree here). I have 2 bachelors in other disciplines, and took time off to work. There are less than 10 new grads in the Ph.D. track this year, and more than half of us have “unconventional” backgrounds- degrees in other fields, changing direction, time off from academia working, etc. This department has a great reputation and is highly successful at putting out top notch researchers, its not like they have to pick from the bottom of the barrel. I think they actually look for people with more “life experience”, different backgrounds, degrees in other fields, etc. here. YMMV - this is a progressive department.

In short, given the right department, your departure from academia for a few years might actually help you in the application process. There are many people in their first few years of grad school here who are well over 30, some over 40. Shop around, find someplace that will value the perspective you bring to the table.

30

And you’d be right. :wink:

However, nowadays, for the sciences at any rate, there is the option to do either a BSci course or an MSci course at undergrad level; its rare for those who do Bscis to go on to a Phd nowadays. (Which I not one preview that Bonzer’s already kind of said)

Not really. The trend tends to be for no one to say anything negative, but a lot can be said without saying anything; its more what’s missed out that makes an impact.

Also, being seen to be working with the right people for say a final year project, is also vital – academia is still reputation based.

31

:smack: That’ll teach me to post before breakfast. :wink:

32

Really? I’m glad I started this thread then, as I had no idea how to appraise a program other than going off the department’s reputation. Thanks for that, I’ll have a look at your recommendations.

I’m only doing a BSc, but it’s a four year course (there’s no MSc available for students coming straight from college in CS at Edinburgh, only BSc). How much does this really matter?

I’ll do that, thanks.

33

BTW, thanks everyone for the advice, not just those that I have quoted.

34

Actually, the Edinburgh program looks much better than the Manchester one. If you don’t think you can get into Oxford, I would say Birmingham is probably your next best bet but the Edinburgh one is pretty decent.

Generally, what you want to look for are:

  1. Look at the number of staff in the lab. Are they just maintaining a skeleton crew? People seem to grow to fill any available funding so if there are only a few people, it’s likely to be not too much funding either. 4 - 6 staff seems like a good number. More than 20 and it starts getting a bit overwhelming.

  2. Look at the number of papers, are they publishing regularly? A general rule of thumb might be 2 papers per staff member per year and 1 paper per PhD student per year minimum.

  3. Look at the journals/conferences they get published in. Are they big names or obscure ones. This takes a bit of experience to know whats what though.

  4. Are they cited often? Pick a couple of papers that look interesting and run them through citeseer/google scholar. Do they get cited? 50 is a phenomenally well cited paper, 10 is respectable. Less than 3 means it was pretty much ignored.

  5. Look at their projects, specifically any images/videos they put up. Anybody can do a slick looking render of what their system SHOULD look like. But it’s much harder to fake a convincing video.

  6. Talk to people in your field. Presumably the robotics people at your uni know whats what in the robotics scene over there much better than I do.

  7. Ask for a visit. Most labs are generally fairly accomodating to potential PhD students looking to check out the work. How are the people there? Does it seem rather spartan and lacking in funds or is everything being taken care of? Do they have any neat hardware? Does your potential supervisor seem intelligent and caring?

  8. [del]Punch one of the robots and see if it punches back.[/del]

35

Ph.D in my little world means: Pop Has Dough.

36

Shalmanese thanks. I applied to Oxford for my undergraduate course, but didn’t get in, so I’m unsure of my chances if I apply again. It probably won’t hurt to try, though.

I may stay at Edinburgh, yet, though :slight_smile:

37

UK Comp Sci PhD here.

Funding will be either
ESPRC - not restricted to British residents
industrial - ditto, probably
CASE award (EPSRC/industrial funding) - best paid, but retricted to British residents
university bursary

These awards may be linked to a specific research topic, or may be available to support a project you suggest. With EPSRC it very often starts as the former,but you can move to the latter, provided your supervisor is happy.

Check out potential supervisors as well as the university. It’s possible to have a good experience at an otherwise crappy place or a bad one at some illustrious department. The supervisor is the key. If you can talk to current or former students, that’s a good thing.

Reading research literature in your area of interest will give you an idea of who is active. Don’t just go on RAE ratings - a low RAE rating doesn’t mean no one in that institution is doing good research. If you find articles that interest you, email the authors, get some dialogue going.

And get a 1st or a 2:1, obviously!

38

That’s a prejudice I’m not familiar with.

I spent 6 years in graduate school and “pop has dough” applies to almost no one I ever met. Most of us were scrounging by on the $1000 per month the school gave us, paying $350 for rent in some shit hole, paying for our own health care, and taking out loans to smooth out the rough spots. It was anything but a leisure activity that someone with too much money and time would do. It was hard hard work for not great reward, not something I associate with the idle rich.

To the OP: I went to grad school basically because I didn’t feel like thinking about joining the work force. I knew I’d finish a masters and then see how I felt about continuing. I did continue, but then after a couple more years, I met a girl, research was slow, I had a job opportunity, so I left with the masters.

See, going to grad school isn’t a huge committment, and you’re still young, so it’s not like you’re not paying your mortgage or letting your family go hungry.

And, if you hate it, shit. . .drop out halfway through your first semester.

The Ph.D. itself. . .well, the thing is, with that comes a lot of responsibility. You either enter academia, and get bounced around with no stability and crappy pay until you might be lucky enough to get tenure somewhere – if you spend every living second of your time doing research and publishing along with your teaching duties. But, the academic world can be small and isolated, too.

If you want to go into private industry, you can’t just be a “cog”. You need to be a leader. You need to publish. You need to come up with new ideas. See, within a university or within a company, you might have a lot of autonomy, but you’re not the guy who can just knock off whenever you want. With that Ph.D. there are lots of constraints and expectations.

See, i’m a cog. I have a masters degree and I have some marketable skills, so I’m a somewhat important cog, mildly respected for a couple of my talents. I’m not just a guy they can plug in another chump for, but I’m not a guy who is expected to be at the forefront of stuff. Personally, I like it that way.

Anyway, I’d say go to a graduate school you feel good about. You’re not locked into staying there for your Ph.D. and you have the option of transferring if you want.

39

Spouse is working, maybe. Pop has dough - never.

What is your little world?

40

In graduate school, I received a stipend of $1400 a month, in a major metropolitan area. Including four cross-country plane flights (two to visit my family, two for weddings), I saved about $1,000 my first year in graduate school.

Then I got a girlfriend. :smiley: