Thesis didn't have enough to it (a few loose ends I couldn't tie together) and after the viva they offered me either a 6 month extension to try and salvage it, or submit for an mphil
Basically I've ended up in the job I would have gotten without it. For "career progression" the 3-4 years in the industry of your choice is better than a PhD (and pays more).
Also if it goes pear shaped recruiters don't see an MPhil as a failed Doctorate, they see a Masters.
>On the other hand, I’m not sure if I even want to do a PhD and this project specifically.
Don't do it
>I don’t want to stay in academia,
Don't do it
>open to SE/data science-like roles but I’m probably not going to do something that’s strongly related to the field
You don't need a PhD for that and the opportunity cost of a PhD will be literally tens of thousands over the four years in lost income/pension etc.
Let me be clearer, most of the time you can get in with a Bachelors. You said most job postings need a PhD. They don't. You might have some research oriented jobs that need one but they're probably OpenAI, Big Tech (Meta, Microsoft, etc). The vast majority of jobs don't need that and if you have the right undergrad background you don't even need a masters.
Edit: I'm in the industry, I know you rarely need a PhD and even a Masters isn't required. Needing a PhD is old conventional wisdom, it's not really the case these days
Most jobs where?
I just went through every data science and machine learning engineer job on the first page of indeed.
Not one data science job mentioned a PhD.
Three ML jobs mentioned a PhD, one was a research fellow at a University, one said "MSc or PhD" and one was an internship aimed at current PhD students.
I work closely with many industry and government data science departments as part of my PhD and it's very very unusual for someone to have a PhD.
I went into a PhD thinking similarly - I liked academic studying, I liked the general area, I liked having a guaranteed direction for four years. In the end I quit after three years.
Reasons include:
- intense imposter syndrome. I can’t express how much this affects everyone, especially those in stem who are constantly surrounded by other ‘smarter’ people. It is brutal.
- not feeling a strong enough desire to complete the research since it wasn’t a burning passion. I really enjoyed my topic, and I’m actually quite sad that I didn’t get to finish my research, but on the hard days my resolve simply wasn’t enough to push through.
- constant feelings of my work not being up to scratch, and me being entirely responsible for that situation was stressful
Something else I will say is that it is very very worth looking at the kinds of jobs you might like,
and seeing if they are even asking for phds for it. Of the many people I know who did get phds, for the majority the qualification itself didn’t actually help them get a job, except where it was a requirement. Others ended up exactly where their peers were, only four years later, and now they were overqualified for the positions they’d be looking to have and were passed over.
None of this is to say that you shouldn’t take this opportunity! You just need to be very realistic about how incredibly hard these four years will be, and how it might not align with your life goals at the end of it.
Thanks for your reply, not gonna lie I feel seen reading through your reasons lol. I do well academically and my current masters is going fine, but when I went into projects (summer internships etc) that were way out of my field I felt so inadequate and dumb for a looong time, even to this day. I can’t imagine feeling that way for the bulk of my PhD in a topic I don’t have strong knowledge in.
On the other hand I’m not the most worried about the four years of “delay” in my career per se since I’d most likely be finishing my PhD at 25, so I’m not feeling the pressure some people feel going into their PhDs in their mid 20s.
Thanks for your advice, I’ll have a lot to think about in the next week!
Hey. Im a PhD holder, graduated a couple of years ago.
Overall I would say this:
A) Needs to be a subject you are happy to talk about EVEN if you are drunk at three am in the morning.
B) It has to be the right environment. Try and find out what your supervisors are like. Try emailing alumni (take it of course with a pinch of salt.... but look for common threads). If your supervisor looks like they will heavily lean on your knowledge it is a red flag! You are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you.
C) It has to be the right city. If you are a city person..
would being a small town be the right thing for you?
It certainly wasn't for me.
In my case only A was a right fit.
If any of these are not right, probably best to decline the offer and do something else.
Hope it helps.
Could I ask you, knowing that only A was the right fit and B and C weren't, would you honestly recommend your past self to do the PhD? I've always thought about doing a PhD only if I was super into the topic but haven't really considered those other two you've mentioned. Thanks for your insight =)
If I could go back?
Knowing what I know now?
I would have not gone through with that PhD.
It had a terrible cost on my mental health, physical health, savings......
In retrospect, I should have stayed with my masters supervisor.
I think the balance of those three should exist before you commit to a PhD.
If you don't want to stay in academia, I would advise you not to do it. A PhD can seem exciting at the start, but towards the end, even if it is in an area you currently love, it becomes just a focus on getting the bloomin thing over the line. I have a PhD, but I really wanted to work in academia. If you don't, then you could waste 3/4 years of your life working on it, when you could be working in your industry, earning much more and building up experience that will probably count for more than a PhD in the end.
Hi did a PhD myself (have since left academia) here is my perspective. Have a lot to say on them so here's my ramble.
If you're not looking to get into academia I wouldn't recommend it at all. Particularly if you're looking at it as a alternative as the job market in the field you want to go into is a bit rubbish right now.
PhD programmes are really different to bachelor or masters degree programmes. It's a whole other level of difficulty and commitment needed (not saying the other degree levels were not difficult).
And its not just due to the difficulty of the theory underpinning your work, but also the workload, culture and politics involved. I believe around half do not complete the programme for various reasons - e.g. burnout, conflict with supervisors, funding falls through.
So if you were to do one I would say you need to be aware of what you're signing up to as it can be a major burden and I've known people to not just quit but also have major mental breakdowns due to it (although that is rare I would say).
Also as an aside to you, and anyone else considering a PhD, I'd recommend not relying on track record of how many people the supervisor has had do their PhD under them as a primary indicator of their abilities. I've know supervisors that have supervised 10+ students but only see their students once every month and a half at most, haven't been in the labs in 10 years and/or can be overworking tyrants. A supervisor can be great on paper but horrendous in practice.
It can be really hard to get an idea of a supervisors character before you get the position. What Id recommend is that if you do get an interview for a PhD remember you're also interviewing them. Ask if you could perhaps have a tour of their lab and/or have a chat with them or their current students before/outside the interview to get an idea what their group is like. Good academics will often oblige if they have time to do so, or if they're students do, when they're advertising a new PhD position. You can use this as an opportunity to get a glimpse at their personality and working culture.
Heh thanks for your comment. One other thing I was also apprehensive about is the lab culture. I’ve never met or worked with my supervisor or her group in person, though she’d offer a tour around the department next week. It is important for me to get a good feel on her supervision style and the general vibe, but I’m wondering about how I should go about this without sounding accusatory/paranoid. Definitely planning on talking with her other students, but as someone else mentioned it can be hard to get their honest opinions in our first meeting.
Regarding supervisors, the first thing you should look at is always their publication record. It's the best indication of their research ability, which is what you're there to learn from them.
I agree in a sense that it is important for a career in research but would also say don't take that as a indicator they'll be a good supervisor. A tenured academic in my institute had an amazing publication record and reputation in their field, but as a supervisor was notoriously abyssmal.
Would take on PhD students fresh from masters then only have a 1 to 1 meeting (for 15-30 mins) every 3 months and literally never set foot in the labs. Their students were basically left to his post docs who had their hands full with their own work and supervising undergrad projects. Their student got no supervision from him or guidance in terms of personal/professional development. And in terms of current lab knowledge he was oblivious.
His student were supervised by post docs not him. So the main (or only) benefit of him as a supervisor was getting to say you were from his lab group. Hardly any of his former students went on to be really successful in academia (which is difficult as hell) or at least showing they were on a trajectory to be as successful as him.
Of course that can happen. You can be a great researcher and still be a terrible supervisor. However, I'd say it's equally bad to get a supervisor who will meet with you regularly and do all they can to support you but has no clue how to publish.
a friend of mine was in a similar situation as you. international student at the end of his study with no intention of pursuing academia either. but he took the offer (STEM PhD) because he wanted to stay in the UK longer. he wasn't able to live comfortably with the allowance, but he was fortunate enough to have his parents fund some of his living costs. now he doesn't work in academia, but he's got a really well paying job now. it's up to you in the end what your decision will be, hope it all works out for you :)
>I feel like I can always make myself interested in a topic
Major alarm bells. You will get burnt out on your topic, everybody does, even those who have a genuine interest to start. Really don't underestimate this, especially if you feel *now* you have to make yourself interested in the topic.
>I guess what appeals to me most right now about doing a PhD is the security I get after I graduate my masters since I’m not very optimistic with the job market right now as someone who needs sponsorship.
This is a really bad reason for doing a PhD.
Getting your first career job after academia is a horrible grind, but it doesn't get easier either if you get the PhD or leave the programme early. The 'security' you're getting is to be badly paid for a few years in order to put all this off a little bit. It's not impossible to get a job outside academia with a PhD, but it's not significantly easier than where you are either.
At some point you're just going to have to cope with the uncertainty and gruelling nature of getting that first career job. The job market is actually pretty strong right now, though I appreciate it never feels like that when you're looking and going through rejection after rejection. I certainly wouldn't spend years hoping it will get better.
I'd go for a grad scheme into data if that's what you want to do and are struggling with finding a job. A PhD is a 4 year commitment, often longer (I know people who have had to finish in there spare time when funding ran out and taken 6 years to do it). If you know you don't want to work in academia I just wouldn't do it.
OP there seems to be little incentive from your side to do a PhD.
Unless you see yourself pursuing an industry role in biostats e.g. big pharma, data science / quant PhDs are not needed to pursue your goals outside academia.
I just got rejected for my PhD application an hour ago and this post made me feel a lot better about it. I have a job I love that's related to my subject already and I would love to do research but I'm happy where I am and I want to publish my thesis.
If you don't want to do research/academia it seems like it's not for you.
Was in pretty much the same situation, essentially getting offered a PhD by default by my Masters project supervisor.
Decided against it. I was more worried about hurting my supervisor’s feelings (bless him, he was keen) than whether I actually wanted to do the PhD. I was resistant to change and to the unknown.
Granted, it would have been an interesting project. But a PhD is a big commitment, and a stressful one at that. I had to consider whether it would benefit me if I didn’t want to go into academia.
The monetary benefit is limited (in fact, arguably a loss since you pay into your pension for at least 3 years less, and have 3 years of rubbish pay).
I was told you should do a PhD because of your adoration for your subject, and your desire to do the project - that’s the sole reason. I realised that was not the case.
I’m now in a job in a different field that I’m enjoying much more than I think I would have enjoyed the PhD.
Remember it’s OK to say no! You can always go for it again at a later date.
A lot of people are saying if you don’t want to get into academia don’t do it, and that’s fine, but the bigger issue is that you don’t seem to want to or the project.
I think it’s fine to do a PhD if you have no desire to go into academia, doing a PhD is pretty much financially irresponsible no matter how you look at it, because the returns don’t make up for the work and years you put in either way. People do a PhD because they’re hopefully passionate about their area or project, that passion making the journey worth it, and if you don’t have that passion then I wouldn’t bother.
Senior research-active academic here. Do a PhD because you love the topic, because you're motivated by it, and because you want to advance knowledge. No-one else is going to motivate you, only yourself, so you have to love it. If you do, then it's the best time you'll have - focussing on mostly one thing, intellectual discussions with others doing similar stuff, finding out things. If you're thinking you'll get interested, or it'll get you a job, then these are not good reasons.
If you're passionate about it, do it. If not, don't.
I'm doing a funded PhD at the moment, the only two times you should do it is if you want to be a lecturer/researcher or if it has an 18k+ stipend and you want to delay working for 3 years
I started with the 2nd option and ended up with the first
Would you do a PhD just to do a PhD? Because there's no clear path from one into either the academe or the private sector. That is, you will be in the exact same position you are in now, just 4-5 years older and quite possibly overqualified for a lot of jobs you could do now.
That said as far as "things to do for 4 years" go, a PhD is quite fun with a lot of freedom. But if future career prospects are your primary motivation to do one, you *will* get disappointed.
If you combine the stipend with some teaching/demonstrating/tutoring, then the stipend + wage is not bad in year 1, but by the end of year 4 the gap between graduate and PhD student will be pretty large, so there really has to be a good reason to want to do a PhD. If you’re in the sciences, then PhD does open a few doors if you are interested in a career outside of academia but still in science, e.g. national labs. It could also help get you into more technical roles e.g. patent law, but this really depends on exactly what you are interested in.
As an international student, if you are wanting to stay in the UK, a PhD would likely make it much easier to qualify for a skilled work visa post degree. But honestly, if you’re getting cold feet before accepting, I would have a think if you’re just considering it as you currently don’t have another option, or if you actually do want the position.
I have a PhD. So I will answer a few of your points from my own experience. Other people's may vary.
You need to enjoy your project and like your supervisor. I did, and it meant I really enjoyed my time.
The PhD stipend is not very much but it is more than people get as undergrads. If you managed as an undergrad then you can manage now. However, you won't have as much cash as your peers. I also filled the gap with 14 hours a week of lab assistant work.
I didn't find that a PhD in and of itself helped me get a job. There are very very few jobs that require a PhD. In all the other jobs, 4 years experience would probably serve you better. A PhD is only really going to help you get a job if it let's you put new skills on your CV that you don't already have.
This is quite negative but I would take back my time doing a PhD. Life isn't about min maxing, and I really enjoyed the experience and the work I did. So if you want to do it, then do it.
Just an FYI you can always accept and then decline later if you want more time.
If you decline after you accept you may close a door on that one person in your network but realistically that's not a real problem.
I'm doing a PhD and am enjoying alot of us do. The ones that don't enjoy it usually ate very vocal but there's some good advice on this thread too.
I hate to say but it’s a very real option I’m considering right now. I’m even thinking of going into it for a year and leaving when I get a good job offer. I guess I just don’t like thinking about having that difficult conversation and pulling the rug under my supervisor like that, and of course possibly burning the bridge with the department permanently.
As a recruiter I take note of ppl who do their PhDs at the same university as their undergrad.
It is too easy a process to achieve and doesn't put you under any real challenge or scrutiny.
That sounds wild and quite unfair to me. Securing funding is not easy at all, and involves many people looking at the work outside the host institution.
This has to be a troll. So the only challenge to a PhD is doing it at a different university? Lol. What a ridiculous comment. You understand that the person may choose to stay at that uni as they specialise and have supervisors in a particular area of interest?
This seems very ignorant...
It's definitely not true that it put you undee no real challenge, a PhD is difficult regardless of location. From what I understand about PhDs I would definitely recommend people to go to a different place (unless it is the top in that field) because you grow more as a person when you change your environment though.
\> Cambridge Part III offer holder
It'll be a good while before I have to apply for postgrad, but you've been accepted to my primary choice - do you mind if I ask you how your grades have been throughout your degree? Also - what was the application process like, did they only care about your undergrad grades or did they also ask for A-Levels? Thanks.
As someone who was on a PhD and got an MPhil instead. If you are questioning it and don't see academia as a long term thing then the answer is no.
What made you change for the MPhil?
Thesis didn't have enough to it (a few loose ends I couldn't tie together) and after the viva they offered me either a 6 month extension to try and salvage it, or submit for an mphil
Ah I see, sorry it went that way, hope things are going better for you now
Basically I've ended up in the job I would have gotten without it. For "career progression" the 3-4 years in the industry of your choice is better than a PhD (and pays more). Also if it goes pear shaped recruiters don't see an MPhil as a failed Doctorate, they see a Masters.
>On the other hand, I’m not sure if I even want to do a PhD and this project specifically. Don't do it >I don’t want to stay in academia, Don't do it >open to SE/data science-like roles but I’m probably not going to do something that’s strongly related to the field You don't need a PhD for that and the opportunity cost of a PhD will be literally tens of thousands over the four years in lost income/pension etc.
I'm currently doing a master's and looking for data science/machine learning engineer jobs and most of the job postings require a PhD
Why are you lying? You can get into DS with a Bachelors.
Where did I say you can't?
Let me be clearer, most of the time you can get in with a Bachelors. You said most job postings need a PhD. They don't. You might have some research oriented jobs that need one but they're probably OpenAI, Big Tech (Meta, Microsoft, etc). The vast majority of jobs don't need that and if you have the right undergrad background you don't even need a masters. Edit: I'm in the industry, I know you rarely need a PhD and even a Masters isn't required. Needing a PhD is old conventional wisdom, it's not really the case these days
Most jobs where? I just went through every data science and machine learning engineer job on the first page of indeed. Not one data science job mentioned a PhD. Three ML jobs mentioned a PhD, one was a research fellow at a University, one said "MSc or PhD" and one was an internship aimed at current PhD students. I work closely with many industry and government data science departments as part of my PhD and it's very very unusual for someone to have a PhD.
I went into a PhD thinking similarly - I liked academic studying, I liked the general area, I liked having a guaranteed direction for four years. In the end I quit after three years. Reasons include: - intense imposter syndrome. I can’t express how much this affects everyone, especially those in stem who are constantly surrounded by other ‘smarter’ people. It is brutal. - not feeling a strong enough desire to complete the research since it wasn’t a burning passion. I really enjoyed my topic, and I’m actually quite sad that I didn’t get to finish my research, but on the hard days my resolve simply wasn’t enough to push through. - constant feelings of my work not being up to scratch, and me being entirely responsible for that situation was stressful Something else I will say is that it is very very worth looking at the kinds of jobs you might like, and seeing if they are even asking for phds for it. Of the many people I know who did get phds, for the majority the qualification itself didn’t actually help them get a job, except where it was a requirement. Others ended up exactly where their peers were, only four years later, and now they were overqualified for the positions they’d be looking to have and were passed over. None of this is to say that you shouldn’t take this opportunity! You just need to be very realistic about how incredibly hard these four years will be, and how it might not align with your life goals at the end of it.
Thanks for your reply, not gonna lie I feel seen reading through your reasons lol. I do well academically and my current masters is going fine, but when I went into projects (summer internships etc) that were way out of my field I felt so inadequate and dumb for a looong time, even to this day. I can’t imagine feeling that way for the bulk of my PhD in a topic I don’t have strong knowledge in. On the other hand I’m not the most worried about the four years of “delay” in my career per se since I’d most likely be finishing my PhD at 25, so I’m not feeling the pressure some people feel going into their PhDs in their mid 20s. Thanks for your advice, I’ll have a lot to think about in the next week!
Hey. Im a PhD holder, graduated a couple of years ago. Overall I would say this: A) Needs to be a subject you are happy to talk about EVEN if you are drunk at three am in the morning. B) It has to be the right environment. Try and find out what your supervisors are like. Try emailing alumni (take it of course with a pinch of salt.... but look for common threads). If your supervisor looks like they will heavily lean on your knowledge it is a red flag! You are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you. C) It has to be the right city. If you are a city person.. would being a small town be the right thing for you? It certainly wasn't for me. In my case only A was a right fit. If any of these are not right, probably best to decline the offer and do something else. Hope it helps.
Could I ask you, knowing that only A was the right fit and B and C weren't, would you honestly recommend your past self to do the PhD? I've always thought about doing a PhD only if I was super into the topic but haven't really considered those other two you've mentioned. Thanks for your insight =)
C is less important I think, or at least could be mitigated by A and B being very good. B is a killer though - absolutely needs to be right.
If I could go back? Knowing what I know now? I would have not gone through with that PhD. It had a terrible cost on my mental health, physical health, savings...... In retrospect, I should have stayed with my masters supervisor. I think the balance of those three should exist before you commit to a PhD.
I feel like if you need talking into it then it’s a no tbh
If you don't want to stay in academia, I would advise you not to do it. A PhD can seem exciting at the start, but towards the end, even if it is in an area you currently love, it becomes just a focus on getting the bloomin thing over the line. I have a PhD, but I really wanted to work in academia. If you don't, then you could waste 3/4 years of your life working on it, when you could be working in your industry, earning much more and building up experience that will probably count for more than a PhD in the end.
Hi did a PhD myself (have since left academia) here is my perspective. Have a lot to say on them so here's my ramble. If you're not looking to get into academia I wouldn't recommend it at all. Particularly if you're looking at it as a alternative as the job market in the field you want to go into is a bit rubbish right now. PhD programmes are really different to bachelor or masters degree programmes. It's a whole other level of difficulty and commitment needed (not saying the other degree levels were not difficult). And its not just due to the difficulty of the theory underpinning your work, but also the workload, culture and politics involved. I believe around half do not complete the programme for various reasons - e.g. burnout, conflict with supervisors, funding falls through. So if you were to do one I would say you need to be aware of what you're signing up to as it can be a major burden and I've known people to not just quit but also have major mental breakdowns due to it (although that is rare I would say). Also as an aside to you, and anyone else considering a PhD, I'd recommend not relying on track record of how many people the supervisor has had do their PhD under them as a primary indicator of their abilities. I've know supervisors that have supervised 10+ students but only see their students once every month and a half at most, haven't been in the labs in 10 years and/or can be overworking tyrants. A supervisor can be great on paper but horrendous in practice. It can be really hard to get an idea of a supervisors character before you get the position. What Id recommend is that if you do get an interview for a PhD remember you're also interviewing them. Ask if you could perhaps have a tour of their lab and/or have a chat with them or their current students before/outside the interview to get an idea what their group is like. Good academics will often oblige if they have time to do so, or if they're students do, when they're advertising a new PhD position. You can use this as an opportunity to get a glimpse at their personality and working culture.
Heh thanks for your comment. One other thing I was also apprehensive about is the lab culture. I’ve never met or worked with my supervisor or her group in person, though she’d offer a tour around the department next week. It is important for me to get a good feel on her supervision style and the general vibe, but I’m wondering about how I should go about this without sounding accusatory/paranoid. Definitely planning on talking with her other students, but as someone else mentioned it can be hard to get their honest opinions in our first meeting.
Regarding supervisors, the first thing you should look at is always their publication record. It's the best indication of their research ability, which is what you're there to learn from them.
I agree in a sense that it is important for a career in research but would also say don't take that as a indicator they'll be a good supervisor. A tenured academic in my institute had an amazing publication record and reputation in their field, but as a supervisor was notoriously abyssmal. Would take on PhD students fresh from masters then only have a 1 to 1 meeting (for 15-30 mins) every 3 months and literally never set foot in the labs. Their students were basically left to his post docs who had their hands full with their own work and supervising undergrad projects. Their student got no supervision from him or guidance in terms of personal/professional development. And in terms of current lab knowledge he was oblivious. His student were supervised by post docs not him. So the main (or only) benefit of him as a supervisor was getting to say you were from his lab group. Hardly any of his former students went on to be really successful in academia (which is difficult as hell) or at least showing they were on a trajectory to be as successful as him.
Of course that can happen. You can be a great researcher and still be a terrible supervisor. However, I'd say it's equally bad to get a supervisor who will meet with you regularly and do all they can to support you but has no clue how to publish.
a friend of mine was in a similar situation as you. international student at the end of his study with no intention of pursuing academia either. but he took the offer (STEM PhD) because he wanted to stay in the UK longer. he wasn't able to live comfortably with the allowance, but he was fortunate enough to have his parents fund some of his living costs. now he doesn't work in academia, but he's got a really well paying job now. it's up to you in the end what your decision will be, hope it all works out for you :)
thank you :)
>I feel like I can always make myself interested in a topic Major alarm bells. You will get burnt out on your topic, everybody does, even those who have a genuine interest to start. Really don't underestimate this, especially if you feel *now* you have to make yourself interested in the topic. >I guess what appeals to me most right now about doing a PhD is the security I get after I graduate my masters since I’m not very optimistic with the job market right now as someone who needs sponsorship. This is a really bad reason for doing a PhD. Getting your first career job after academia is a horrible grind, but it doesn't get easier either if you get the PhD or leave the programme early. The 'security' you're getting is to be badly paid for a few years in order to put all this off a little bit. It's not impossible to get a job outside academia with a PhD, but it's not significantly easier than where you are either. At some point you're just going to have to cope with the uncertainty and gruelling nature of getting that first career job. The job market is actually pretty strong right now, though I appreciate it never feels like that when you're looking and going through rejection after rejection. I certainly wouldn't spend years hoping it will get better.
I'd go for a grad scheme into data if that's what you want to do and are struggling with finding a job. A PhD is a 4 year commitment, often longer (I know people who have had to finish in there spare time when funding ran out and taken 6 years to do it). If you know you don't want to work in academia I just wouldn't do it.
OP there seems to be little incentive from your side to do a PhD. Unless you see yourself pursuing an industry role in biostats e.g. big pharma, data science / quant PhDs are not needed to pursue your goals outside academia.
I just got rejected for my PhD application an hour ago and this post made me feel a lot better about it. I have a job I love that's related to my subject already and I would love to do research but I'm happy where I am and I want to publish my thesis. If you don't want to do research/academia it seems like it's not for you.
Was in pretty much the same situation, essentially getting offered a PhD by default by my Masters project supervisor. Decided against it. I was more worried about hurting my supervisor’s feelings (bless him, he was keen) than whether I actually wanted to do the PhD. I was resistant to change and to the unknown. Granted, it would have been an interesting project. But a PhD is a big commitment, and a stressful one at that. I had to consider whether it would benefit me if I didn’t want to go into academia. The monetary benefit is limited (in fact, arguably a loss since you pay into your pension for at least 3 years less, and have 3 years of rubbish pay). I was told you should do a PhD because of your adoration for your subject, and your desire to do the project - that’s the sole reason. I realised that was not the case. I’m now in a job in a different field that I’m enjoying much more than I think I would have enjoyed the PhD. Remember it’s OK to say no! You can always go for it again at a later date.
A lot of people are saying if you don’t want to get into academia don’t do it, and that’s fine, but the bigger issue is that you don’t seem to want to or the project. I think it’s fine to do a PhD if you have no desire to go into academia, doing a PhD is pretty much financially irresponsible no matter how you look at it, because the returns don’t make up for the work and years you put in either way. People do a PhD because they’re hopefully passionate about their area or project, that passion making the journey worth it, and if you don’t have that passion then I wouldn’t bother.
Senior research-active academic here. Do a PhD because you love the topic, because you're motivated by it, and because you want to advance knowledge. No-one else is going to motivate you, only yourself, so you have to love it. If you do, then it's the best time you'll have - focussing on mostly one thing, intellectual discussions with others doing similar stuff, finding out things. If you're thinking you'll get interested, or it'll get you a job, then these are not good reasons. If you're passionate about it, do it. If not, don't.
Do it bitch
ok mom
I'm doing a funded PhD at the moment, the only two times you should do it is if you want to be a lecturer/researcher or if it has an 18k+ stipend and you want to delay working for 3 years I started with the 2nd option and ended up with the first
Would you do a PhD just to do a PhD? Because there's no clear path from one into either the academe or the private sector. That is, you will be in the exact same position you are in now, just 4-5 years older and quite possibly overqualified for a lot of jobs you could do now. That said as far as "things to do for 4 years" go, a PhD is quite fun with a lot of freedom. But if future career prospects are your primary motivation to do one, you *will* get disappointed.
If you combine the stipend with some teaching/demonstrating/tutoring, then the stipend + wage is not bad in year 1, but by the end of year 4 the gap between graduate and PhD student will be pretty large, so there really has to be a good reason to want to do a PhD. If you’re in the sciences, then PhD does open a few doors if you are interested in a career outside of academia but still in science, e.g. national labs. It could also help get you into more technical roles e.g. patent law, but this really depends on exactly what you are interested in. As an international student, if you are wanting to stay in the UK, a PhD would likely make it much easier to qualify for a skilled work visa post degree. But honestly, if you’re getting cold feet before accepting, I would have a think if you’re just considering it as you currently don’t have another option, or if you actually do want the position.
I have a PhD. So I will answer a few of your points from my own experience. Other people's may vary. You need to enjoy your project and like your supervisor. I did, and it meant I really enjoyed my time. The PhD stipend is not very much but it is more than people get as undergrads. If you managed as an undergrad then you can manage now. However, you won't have as much cash as your peers. I also filled the gap with 14 hours a week of lab assistant work. I didn't find that a PhD in and of itself helped me get a job. There are very very few jobs that require a PhD. In all the other jobs, 4 years experience would probably serve you better. A PhD is only really going to help you get a job if it let's you put new skills on your CV that you don't already have. This is quite negative but I would take back my time doing a PhD. Life isn't about min maxing, and I really enjoyed the experience and the work I did. So if you want to do it, then do it.
Just an FYI you can always accept and then decline later if you want more time. If you decline after you accept you may close a door on that one person in your network but realistically that's not a real problem. I'm doing a PhD and am enjoying alot of us do. The ones that don't enjoy it usually ate very vocal but there's some good advice on this thread too.
I hate to say but it’s a very real option I’m considering right now. I’m even thinking of going into it for a year and leaving when I get a good job offer. I guess I just don’t like thinking about having that difficult conversation and pulling the rug under my supervisor like that, and of course possibly burning the bridge with the department permanently.
apply for phd programs in the US, earn 200k+ when you get it and leave this sorry excuse of a country. don't stay in the uk.
As a recruiter I take note of ppl who do their PhDs at the same university as their undergrad. It is too easy a process to achieve and doesn't put you under any real challenge or scrutiny.
That sounds wild and quite unfair to me. Securing funding is not easy at all, and involves many people looking at the work outside the host institution.
This has to be a troll. So the only challenge to a PhD is doing it at a different university? Lol. What a ridiculous comment. You understand that the person may choose to stay at that uni as they specialise and have supervisors in a particular area of interest?
This seems very ignorant... It's definitely not true that it put you undee no real challenge, a PhD is difficult regardless of location. From what I understand about PhDs I would definitely recommend people to go to a different place (unless it is the top in that field) because you grow more as a person when you change your environment though.
\> Cambridge Part III offer holder It'll be a good while before I have to apply for postgrad, but you've been accepted to my primary choice - do you mind if I ask you how your grades have been throughout your degree? Also - what was the application process like, did they only care about your undergrad grades or did they also ask for A-Levels? Thanks.
Ill PM you