You definitely aren’t too old, but I would never take on a PhD student that wants to continue working elsewhere. A PhD is a full-time job. It took me 6.5 years and was hard enough with very little outside distractions.
By "old" I didn't mean actual biological age exactly. I guess the more appropriate word would be something more like "settled". As it stands, I have a mortgage and whatnot to take care of, it's not really realistic for me to quit my job and focus full-time on a PhD for the next 5-6 years.
> but I would never take on a PhD student that wants to continue working elsewhere
That seems to be the consensus in the US for the most part. Ironically, it's actually easier for a working American to get a distance-learning PhD from a British university than it is to get a local PhD in person in the states.
Right now I'm in the process of trying to get into University of York's distance part-time PhD, while remaining in NY. It's a long shot but it's basically my only option.
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.
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).
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.
https://www.york.ac.uk/distance-learning/courses/#computer-s...
Even though he has nicer hair and is a much better musician.
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'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 ;)
- 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.
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.
Source: European, have lived in the US since 6 years now.
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.
And have a BATNA.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not disagreeing, but colleges/professors certainly like to project the opposite in many cases
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.
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.
That said, a masters degree in the UK is much less of an undertaking than many other countries. Level of independent research in my "combined" masters (4 yr course, usually taken as 1st degree), pales in comparison to what colleagues in mainland Europe had to do.
And it's possible to do a 180 ECTS masters (2 year full time) for four years part time.
Even with my liberal arts background, and having worked in pretty mathy areas of industry, it's rare that I, say, have to use much from my last two years of CS education. (What they did prepare me for is getting to the point that I can read research papers in areas I've since worked in.)
To be clear: virtually everywhere in the US a CS curriculum takes 4 years. There's no deciding in year three and graduating on time. You could potentially switch to CS from engineering, math or physics and get close.
In Germany at least, in contrast to the US, there's no coursework in a PhD, which I believe is the main thing that makes a PhD shorter than, say, a US PhD directly after a bachelors degree (which is typical in the sciences).
While I don't disagree with the sentiment, English has the word "dragon" - doesn't mean dragons exist!
That's not what GP means though: in the first year in the US, generally speaking, undergraduates aren't enrolled on a particular programme; they take a range of courses from different faculties for credit, and decide which area to 'major in' (and perhaps additionally 'a minor') later.
I didn't enter one (regretfully) anywhere - but from what I recall when looking, US/Can typically have more of a taught element in preparation, included in the first year or two of the PhD programme.
Sort of like doing an MPhil or something followed by PhD I suppose, but built-in and I assume designed to counter the effect you describe.
In the US the Bachelor is much wider in scope and you can get the Master during the PhD program.
It's a philosophical difference that doesn't mean a great deal practically. Often, European undergraduate programs are five years in length, although that's been changing as many European institutions now seem to be moving towards four-year programs. I'm not really sure what's driving that shift, but I think it's done partly in an effort to standardise what it means to have a "bachelor's degree" in terms of what employers can expect between Europe and North America, &cet.
I think COVID may have changed some of this paradigm for many schools
It's too extractive for what it's giving back.
I was in a US based PhD program (at Berkeley, mastered out), and I would attest to the heavy coursework load, but I've only heard that European/British programs are largely or purely dissertation based. Would enjoy hearing more about this from someone knowledgeable.
They also seemed to assume a lot more knowledge about CS and math than most US grad schools do. Presumably you're just expected to enter with most of the knowledge required to research your dissertation. For my application, I had to write a 5-6 page proposal on what I wanted to research, and had to more-or-less defend the proposal during the admissions interview.
I'm not as familiar with the American PhD process, but my dad said for him (about 38 years ago, PhD in Aerospace at Notre Dame) it was more or less akin to the undergrad admission process: he took the GRE, sent a few transcripts, interviewed a few people, was accepted, and after about a year he decided what he wanted to focus on.
But still, even the PhD statement was nothing like the 5-6 page proposal with a clear research focus that you described. Sounds more like the kind of program I'd be interested in if I were to go back, as I'd be mainly interested in researching something deeply, not taking classes.
Well, good luck, hope it works out for you.
> You definitely aren’t too old
> By "old" I didn't mean actual biological age exactly.
That should mean it's a 40 hour a week commitment, not that it's the only thing you do for half a decade or more.
The OP should be able to do a doctorate part time, and in Europe that is definitely doable. The funding and the practicalities are very much subject specific, but it does take a long time -- and is very much a labour of love.
Your total justification seems to be that because it was hard for you, it will be hard for others too.
Fwiw my partner got her PhD part-time while working for the university as a researcher and consultant, actively authoring and publishing papers. It took her many years, but mostly it was finishing that was tough.
Interesting, in France in computer science, PhDs are often made while working part time on something related to the PhD.
We have several people at the company I work (in Sweden) doing their PhD part time. The company gets 'free' research in an area relevant to them and the university gets connections to industry and their research field tested on real world projects. Both se it as a win-win. This sort of arrangement seems quite common in Sweden I know several people who got their PhD this way.
I agree, and neither is a PhD, but I don't think that's a great reason.
"Why don't we pay teachers a decent wage? Because money isn't everything and helping students grow to the next generation is something that is inspiring in itself."
It's easy to say "money isn't everything" when you don't have to worry about money. A single parent is unlikely to be able to quit a decent-paying job to work with the low wages of a PhD program; are we just going to say "single parents need not apply" or "your kid should learn that money isn't everything while you live on subsistence wages for the next six years"?
Obviously there are single parents who manage to their PhDs, and that's really cool, but I don't think it's realistic for a lot of (otherwise qualified) people.
"Go work in industry after undergrad/masters" or "forgo making money to pursue a PhD".
Maybe it's borne from the bubble of academia, but as I got more experience in industry it became apparent there were many, many more pathways to a PhD than were discussed while in university.
I have helped make "theses" for people in "banking"/"management" and those require no work.
So 0.0001% of all university students, and then... work three times as hard as them ?
Working harder gets exponentially harder the harder you work. So... 0.0000000000001% of all students then ?
And now, in your application form for a PhD program, you want to convince an employer that they should hire you because you think in you are in that bracket, without any proof that backs it up, even though if for some reason you are not, things catastrophically fail for your employer ?
Yeah good luck with that.
Source: me (several years now complete w/ PhD), my cohort in my program, and my PhD-earning friends outside my field.
I wonder if they exist and if so, how rare.
I suspect it's extremely rare or non-existent for an athlete who holds another full-time job up to the selection time to get selected into a US Olympic swimming team, for example.
"But if you want something extraordinary, you have two paths:
1. Become the best at one specific thing.
2. Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things.
The first strategy is difficult to the point of near impossibility. Few people will ever play in the NBA or make a platinum album. I don’t recommend anyone even try.
The second strategy is fairly easy. Everyone has at least a few areas in which they could be in the top 25% with some effort."
See also https://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2010/04/18/jack-of-all-trades/ for an exploration of how deep knowledge of multiple domains enables opportunities for knowledge brokerage.
This is mostly a recent phenomenon. Definitely not true for many I knew, nor of their professors when they were students.
Lots of people got a PhD by just being disciplined and working 8-5 on it in the usual time frames. I wager many still do.
Btw, this is how most people do their PhDs here. It’s a quick in and out 3 year seal-team like operation. Caveat: We see Ph.D as a degree you do after a 2 year Masters degree. So in total 5 years after undergrad.
It is brutal. It can be worth it, but it is brutal.
An example:
8AM - wake, prepare for day, take bus to campus
9AM - teach class
10:30 AM - office hours, grade, read relevant papers
12:00 PM - short lunch window
12:15 PM - research, write code, notes. Short intermittent breaks. Library visits. Seminar attendance / prep, seminar/journal reading, prep, etc. Consult with advisor, others
7:00 PM - break for dinner, bus home
8:00 PM - research, write code, notes. Short intermittent breaks. Seminary reading, journal reading, etc. Class prep.
3:00 AM - sleep
Weekends were similar to weekdays without class or bussing.
One option is to look for a full-time job that does research but is also affiliated with a university. Think national laboratories or government positions. If you're smart about it, you may be able to make your full-time work count towards your thesis. Many of these affiliations also offer free/reduced tuition and you'll almost certainly be paid more than if you were a PhD student working for a university. Some will even pay your normal salary and allow you to take a year or more off to focus on school. The real difficulty is working a schedule that let's you take courses, but I suspect this is easier now with the amount of remote learning available. I'd also say to stay away from advisors who think there's only one way to skin this cat :-). It was my experience that they don't work as well with non-traditional students.
To echo what was said elsewhere, advisors/programs that mandate a certain time commitment may be looking to burden you with ancillary duties that don't fit well with a non-traditional approach. Some programs would not admit me unless I was willing teach a certain number of classes, even though I was self funded through my employer. Some tried to force me into a resident status for the same reasons; there was an expectation of working on campus as a means of paying for my keep. I attribute most of these attitude's as a lazy way of thinking where they apply the same template to every student, but I think you can find an alternate path if you're willing to be a bit creative/resilient/persistent.
Best of luck to you.
Also worth mentioning Scandinavian and Swiss universities treat PhDs like a regular industry job (job contract, paid at an acceptable discount wrt industry, pension contribution & other perks). This is how it should be everywhere.
Edit: Also tuition is free.
That's a great opportunity and I hope someone goes for it.
I know several people I work with going this route right now, so some people do it!
My advice is to look at advisors who have a record of doing what you want to do or placing people where you want to go at schools that are a little bit down the rankings from the best possible place you could get into.
My email is in my bio if you want to talk about it.
Come to Sweden (or, rather, Nordic countries in general). There are a lot of opportunities as an industrial PhD student. There are at least 3 out of 10 PhD students in my group doing research while still working in the industry. Usually, the deal is 80% PhD and 20% industry, but I know someone doing 50:50.
The Industrial PhD pays the same here, so that’s mostly a position you would take if you specifically want to collaborate with a company on some research project, not something you do because of income considerations.
Maybe it depends on the field and the country, but I know some industrial PhD position pays a better salary than the one employed full time by the university. Not sure if it is considered to be "much", but at least around 20% more.
The industry part (whether 20% or 50%) easily ends up being close to 100% in practice. And many industrial PhD positions only last a few years, after which you get a normal full-time position and are expected to finish the PhD on your free time. Realistically, this makes it practically impossible to conduct the kind of research that you need to get a PhD from top programs.
I did a similar thing during my bachelor: working close to full time. I was essentially busy 14 hours a day, seven days a week. I was burned out within a year and switched to 20 hour weeks. Looking back I suspect that I suffered from somewhat severe lasting consequences for at least another two years and I don't think I've been quite the same person since.
Be mindful of what you're doing. Your brain and body need downtime at some point.
Anyway, it's really inspiring that someone almost three times my age pushed himself through the program. I guess it's important to remember that you really shouldn't give up on your dreams.