You're right, expectations are very different in the "old continent". Things very quite significantly from country to country, but generally speaking in most EU you can do your PhD while working.
Retrospectively, knowing what I know know, I should add that if I were to start a PhD now I wouldn't trust a university that asks for a full time commitment, no exceptions.
I would be very suspicious that they will burden me with all kind of side activities (e.g. tutoring undergraduate students, handling bureaucracy, paper work, etc.) that are not really of any actual help towards the thesis.
As a professor my view is that PhD students should have quite a lot of "free time" to explore, try different things and fail as many times as possible, with the highest degree of freedom allowed by the domain in which they work. I think that that's at the core of what academic research is all about.
If you don't need lab equipment or anything that requires in person training, I'd say to go absolutely for a remote position as a PhD student. It doesn't really make a huge difference if you can do everything you need in front of a computer.
If you can do your PhD fully remotely, the two most important things are how respected and wel known is the university in which you enrol, and the tutor that will be assigned to you (don't underestimate this!).
Best of luck!
PS you're definitely not too old, and not too settled, as long as you have "hunger" for understanding how things around you work!
You really can't at good universities in the UK. At Cambridge we had to get special permission to live more than 10 miles from Great St Mary's. My advisor's advice was that it was near impossible to finish up while working.
Had enough of Americans telling me about their excruciatingly long PhD programmes when half of that time is spent teaching and doing exams which we'd probably call an MSc. Or half of a post-doc position.
3-4 years is a great length of time for a contract where you're subject to such a power imbalance.
Yes, I have recently completed a PhD at a UK university (aged late 30s). I was able to get full funding for my salary and lab resources for 3 years. I worked so hard and submitted after 4 years. Can't imagine how I could have done those three years while working - it was a very much full-time occupation, if not more.
Fascinating. Was there a lot of coursework, or was this dissertation-based?
The reason I say fascinating is that people do part-time law degrees (25-30 hours a week estimated commitment) while working at times demanding jobs. However, I am very willing to belive that law school is a lot more straightforward than a PhD (attrition rates in elite law schools are below 1%, as opposed to 35%-50% for elite PhD programs).
There wasn't any coursework - just a single thesis at the end. I think some people do achieve a PhD alongside work, but it can be a long process. I also think things have changed these days in that decades ago you could take as long as you liked, whereas now they're very strict about you handing it in completed in 4 years after registration. It maybe that you can register part-time and the deadline is subsequently pushed back, but I imagine it can be a bit risky as departments change and supervisors will come and go if you're taking more than 5 years to do it. The other aspect is what type of PhD it is. For laboratory work it can be hard to fit that around work, especially if you're receiving samples on another timetable.
The funding that you were granted covered your full traditional salary and not a shoe-string budget? I really want to do graduate studies full time but I'm struggling to figure it out financially.
Yes it covered my clinical salary and had around 20'000 per year for the lab work. It was very generous, but hard to get. Also, the year after I got it, the recession had truly hit and charities and research organisations stopped most of their funding.
It was hard applying for the grants, but it is possible in your spare time. You can talk to potential supervisors and they can point you towards grants coming up - and help you write them.
A few decent universities in the UK appear to be somewhat amenable to the idea of part-time distance learning for a PhD. I don't think University of York is considered a bad school by any measure, and it has a program for such things.
I wonder if anyone knows the answer to this Q. Back in the day, UK universities, and in particular Open University, often let you take as long as you liked to finish a Phd. I knew someone who in the 1980s got a lecturer job at Cambridge Uni with only a Masters, and over a period of 16 yrs got a Phd part-time. But it seems this got clamped down, and now unis don't like to see anyone take longer than 6 yrs to complete a Phd, thus restricting opportunities for those working full-time / raising families at the same time. Does anyone know of some exception to this? I quite fancy doing a Phd myself one day, but I assume I'd have to do it in "stealth mode" unofficially for a few yrs without a supervisor first, getting quite far down the line then approaching a supervisor when it seemed like could complete it within 6 yrs, and that whole approach seems potentially to have pit-falls
Brian May started a PhD in astrophysics at Imperial college in the 70s and dropped out when Queen took off. He then re-registered in 2006 and completed so it was clearly possible at that time.
Interesting story about the lecturer. The RAND institute proposed an alternative approach to PhDs modeled more on professional degrees. Law professors, for instance, typical complete law degrees in a very predicable 3 years and build their publications on the job as well paid professors.
This suggestion in the RAND paper was part of an article concluding that there is no shortage of interest in STEM PhDs, and that the aversion US citizens have to these PhD programs is rational and market based when compared to outcomes from professional degrees with (comparably) short, predictable completion times and vastly lower attrition rates.
In other words, if there really were a shortage of PhD STEM students, the career path you described would be plentiful and typical (well, not the 16 year part, but the model of getting good, stable, paid employment after a shorter and more easily completed degree, followed by a process of building publications in that role).
For now, unfortunately, the main lesson is to just say no to PhDs, unless you have a very very strong personal interest in completing one.
> I quite fancy doing a Phd myself one day, but I assume I'd have to do it in "stealth mode" unofficially for a few yrs without a supervisor first
I'd suggest you think very carefully about this first. There's a very high chance the stealth mode work will be non-useful for getting onto a programme. Similar to how working on a 'build it and they will come' approach is generally disadvised for startups. Obviously it depends on how much of a lone genius you are but only you know that ;)
Thank you for friendly helpful advice :) Yeah I've misgivings too. Ha ha I've no idea whether I'm a lone genius or not. I've a hunch for an approach to an area of study which I believe other people have steadfastly ignored or not noticed. Now either (a) they're all informed and I'm not, and they're right not to waste time on such a fruitless approach or (b) I'm on to something worth pursuing. Only one way to find that out. ;) My plan was to try to produce something then demo that to a potential supervisor. There's a couple of professors from when I did my MSc, one in particular is a very nice person who'd probably be interested and at least give it a (healthily critical) hearing. Well, good people of HN you're welcome to reply and shoot down this approach or encourage it, whichever makes most sense. :)
- Full time commitment seems critical to the process. A Ph.D is a time of intellectual exploration, and you can't really do that fighting work and family deadlines.
- On the other hand, time can be squished for older people by virtue of industry experience making them more efficient
- I'd be hesitant about remote, since so much of a Ph.D is learning from others. Hallway conversations are critical. That's possible remotely, but not common.
- Fully agreed about "side activities." Teaching is fine -- you learn A LOT from it -- but a lot of Ph.D programs give stupid administrative grunt work. The metaphorical cleaning of test tubes on a professor's project is a serious red flag.
No such thing as too old, but having a mortgage and family myself now, I definitely get much out of a Ph.D program right now.
I'll mention too: If I didn't have a Ph.D, I'm mature and disciplined enough now that I could learn the same without a formal program.
I am skeptical of new world "accelerated" programs, which often have little substance, and are designed to milk working professionals. It's like getting the piece of paper in Wizard of Oz.
> Full time commitment seems critical to the process. A Ph.D is a time of intellectual exploration, and you can't really do that fighting work and family deadlines.
This is BS. In every other field great strides have been made by individuals who balance a multitude of life requirements. Being able to devote every waking hour to something only results in burnout. And, I suppose, graduate students slave labor, which is the real reason for wanting 100% available graduate students in the program.
Academia in the US has become a pyramid scheme where faculty lures bright, young, hard working students into doing their chores for poverty wages. It's not the faculty's fault, either; they're often overworked as well.
I don't know how anyone produces meaningful research in that environment anymore. It's untenable.
> I don't know how anyone produces meaningful research in that environment anymore. It's untenable.
By ignoring the system.
One of the biggest problems in academia is that students don't know their rights, and professors set the culture. It's a power problem. If students assert their rights -- and they have plenty of them -- they usually do okay. It's neigh impossible to fire a grad student for not doing slave labor, and it looks really, really bad for the professor.
Professors can advise students, but they have very little real power to control them, once students are in the program. The power dynamic comes mostly from a mutual belief in that power existing.
Do good research. Take interesting classes. Have fun. Explore. If your professor tells you to do menial labor, politely blow them off.
That's the deal 5-10x pay cut in return for that freedom. Make sure you get your part of the bargain.
Students need to pass their quals, and produce a good thesis.
That's it. Once you realize that, grad school gets a lot better.
There's a gap a mile wide between Ph.D+family+work (which I described as a bad idea) and "Being able to devote every waking hour"
The whole point of graduate school is to have time for intellectual exploration -- reading papers, talking to students, traveling, taking interesting classes, and so on. Grad school was a wonderful time for me, but I can't imagine doing the same while having a deadline to ship a system next week at work or whatnot.
* Family+grad school is definitely okay, if you're independently wealthy or your spouse has a decent income.
* Grad school+work might be okay if the two align, and your thesis touches on your work. But other than that, I wouldn't recommend it.
* Grad school+work+family? That's a waste of your time. You'll get a slip of paper at the end,
But yes, grad student slave labor mentality is a problem, and if you're grad student slave labor, you are wasting your time too, and working for a fraction of your market value where all you get at the end is a paper.
A thesis advisor is an _advisor_, not a boss. I professors job is to _profess_, not to control. And grad school is _school_, which happens to give a stipend, not a job. If you're not using the time for intellectual explorations, you're doing it wrong.
Yep, I agree 100%. Its just about full-time slave-ownership on disguise, you don't want to share your little slaves with any time sucker like family, hobbies, or whatever outside work they might enjoy... Better to have them full time working for nothin'. While our real professors just do nothin'
> I would be very suspicious that they will burden me with all kind of side activities (e.g. tutoring undergraduate students, handling bureaucracy, paper work, etc.) that are not really of any actual help towards the thesis.
What you're calling a "burden" is the stuff that (a) pays for the funding that covers tuition and living expenses and (b) provides experience that helps you to get a job when you're done. You don't need to burden yourself with those things if you pay everything yourself.
In my experience, some universities/programs still expect these ancillary duties even if you're self-funded. If I was a cynic, it would lead me to believe they are just trying to get cheap labor out of grad students.
Both of your examples are duties that an academic may have in the future. What about someone like the OP that just wants the PhD and continue their path in the industry?
Speaking anecdotally: the US research universities seem like research mills driven by low wage labor from international students. American students I met in my graduate program had to be both really smart or passionate and willing to put up with the demands of the PhD. It’s pretty bleak, and it’s good to hear that it’s different on the old continent.
> Things very quite significantly from country to country, but generally speaking in most EU you can do your PhD while working.
In physics? I don't think so. I did my PHD in Germany but we work in large international collaborations, so I meet s lot of phd students from other countries as well.
Doing a phd in physics is everywhere I know at least a full time job. Often, depending on topic, group, supervisor and yourself even more than a 40 hour week.
The complexity, depth and specialization required don't really allow for anything else.
> I would be very suspicious that they will burden me with all kind of side activities (e.g. tutoring undergraduate students, handling bureaucracy, paper work, etc.) that are not really of any actual help towards the thesis.
So, every PhD position? I have looked at dozens and almost none don't require teaching, paper work, bureaucracy, organisational work, etc. done. I was even warned by one person that this weekend will be the first free weekend in months. Because of teaching, etc. I don't know how meaningful work can be done like this.
I'm sorry the hear that, and I think it's mostly worng.
I should add though that some activities are indeed useful, one of those is certainly teaching. If PhD students have full responsibility over the course, or part of the course, of which they're entrusted, it can be a very productive activity.
It is particularly formative if PhD students are entrusted with teaching activities covering subjects closely related to their thesis. In this way they can practice speaking over the things they are studying, which brings a ton of experience and positive growth.
On the contrary, if it's just teaching to cover hours that the professor to which the course is appointment is not willing to do, than it's much less attractive.
As a general rule, I'd suggest to a PhD student to be as selfish as possible. Although apparently counterintuitive, in their position it is a good rule of thumb to only engage in things that bring some tangible (but not necessarily immediate) utility. There are way too many professors willing to take advantage of younger positions for their own agenda. And that is also why it's very important who your thesis supervisor is.
Finally: never underestimate the "contractual power" that a PhD student has over a professor. Apart of few exceptions, professors need PhD students more than PhD students need professors. And in the case of those exceptions in which the professor is so well known and respected that there is a waiting list to be a PhD student, then I'd bet that it will also be so because such professor knows how to properly supervise PhD students.
Professors depend on grant money and they need to push out papers to be competitive in grant applications. The vast, vast majority of work in research is done by grad students. Without students, professors would have to do everything themselves or compete with industry for talent they can't afford.
Students by contrast need professors for training and advice. Whether they receive these from their advisor depends on the lab. In bigger labs junior students learn more from senior students and post-docs than professors.
Just as an anecdote. I was in a doctoral program in engineering, and I mastered out into a 90k/yr job (this was in the early 2000s) writing cplex code to optimize supply chains. A buddy in the PhD program was doing nearly identical work for a 15k/yr stipend.
> I'm sorry the hear that, and I think it's mostly worng.
I think there is just a large variance between countries and/or fields. I've worked in CS/EE in three top EU universities, and in every case I've seen, PhD students working in a research group had a heavy load of both teaching and project work on top of their PhD research.
You're right, expectations are very different in the "old continent". Things very quite significantly from country to country, but generally speaking in most EU you can do your PhD while working.
Retrospectively, knowing what I know know, I should add that if I were to start a PhD now I wouldn't trust a university that asks for a full time commitment, no exceptions.
I would be very suspicious that they will burden me with all kind of side activities (e.g. tutoring undergraduate students, handling bureaucracy, paper work, etc.) that are not really of any actual help towards the thesis.
As a professor my view is that PhD students should have quite a lot of "free time" to explore, try different things and fail as many times as possible, with the highest degree of freedom allowed by the domain in which they work. I think that that's at the core of what academic research is all about.
If you don't need lab equipment or anything that requires in person training, I'd say to go absolutely for a remote position as a PhD student. It doesn't really make a huge difference if you can do everything you need in front of a computer.
If you can do your PhD fully remotely, the two most important things are how respected and wel known is the university in which you enrol, and the tutor that will be assigned to you (don't underestimate this!).
Best of luck!
PS you're definitely not too old, and not too settled, as long as you have "hunger" for understanding how things around you work!