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.

I'm a long-haired musician PhD-dropout, and his story is a great inspiration.

Even though he has nicer hair and is a much better musician.

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. :)