Well it depends. Psychology is a field that is highly competitive so getting anywhere in it (even with a PhD) will be hard. I am a psychology postdoc, and lecturer jobs are hard to find, but so is making the jump to other fields of psychology. It also depends on which area of psychology you are in as the harder qualitative/ cognitive/ biological psychology end translates quite well to medicine/working for clinical trials, working in numerate areas etc, whereas the more social psychology/quantitative tends to have fewer choices and has to be a bit more imaginative in their career choices (thats just my observation).

From my team one of the post docs here has left to try to get a clinical training place but she hasn't been successful. Another ex RA is doing writing for a medical company, and another has gone into IT. That said, I know of someone who finished their psychology PhD when I did and worked in a consultancy with his friends, but I am not sure of what exactly he does (except he seems loaded now). I think much of this field is about who you know and you connections, as well as how much you know.Some of my undergraduate friends are in graduate training programs, teaching and advertising (which are paths you can still do with a PhD).

Maybe you can get away with it if you do a masters degree as you will have a class with peers, a timetable and something comparable to an undergraduate style of life. Or even start a degree from scratch if you REALLY want to be a first year again.

With a PhD you are on your own, even more isolated even from other PhD students who have to do their own thing. You will probably be spending the most time with your supervisor, (who can never ever truly be your friend).

Also think about whether you would really get on with people that are mainly still in their teens, away from home for the first time and discovering anew the things you have been doing for the last 4 years. I reckon it would be almost be like going back into kindergarten. Sure it would be nice to play in the sandpit for a while, but I think it will get stale quite fast.

For the record, everyone thinks everyone else is having FAR more fun than they are as an undergrad. Everyone else has better parties, is sleeping with more people, drinking more and have more outrageous adventures. Hell, I used to live with the most popular girl on campus and even she had a sneaking suspicion that she was being short changed n the fun stakes. If you get out of uni with a good degree, a few good memories and one or two close friends you will have probably fared as well as most.

Warning. Major rant ahead.

I have just had one of the most depressive months on record. My postdoc is around half way, but the level of responsibility I now have means I should probably be a PI. Dr Ubercompetitive (another post doc) has now left for pastures new, and the other post docs are "working from home" since November.

I have taken over the co-supervision of one of my PhDers. A young woman who is fresh from her undergrad degree and the most recent addition to the team. A degree in advanced whining and complaining from the sounds of things. Nothing is ever good enough for Ms Complaint. Her computer is too slow. Her seat is too near the door. She doesn't like Sabrina (another PhDer, who has had a fairly crappy time recently- see an earlier post). She feels she doesnt need to wash up as she is now a PhD student. It never ends. The other PhDers are complaining, and she is seriously holding back my work as I have to spend hours explaining things she should have learned on her undergrad course, like everyone else.

I am trying to be nice as possible but honestly it is trying to supervise an advanced neuroscience PhD for Jade Goody. Fair is fair, but after a certain point everyone has a limit to their patience. I dont want to do anything because if there is a complaint about bullying from her I think our team is more or less finished (due to prior events). We all know this, and we are just gritting our teeth.

======= Date Modified 22 Oct 2008 22:47:30 =======
I think it depends on what you viewed this sacrifice was for. What are your expectations at the end? For many doing 5 degrees can seem like you were unfocussed/ unwilling to face the real world etc etc.

I have a good friend, who did a PhD with me and went onto do a clinical psychology doctorate. I used to tease him about avoiding work being a permanant student, but to give him his credit, he really loved whatever he was doing (at the time much more than I did).

That said my ex gf did something similar and she became quite miserable and resentful about the hoops she had to jump through, and how things didnt live up to her expectations at the end. I think she had several feelings similar to yours, and money etc became a real issue for her (and us ultimately). IMO it hasnt made her happy, she was far sweeter and kinder before, when she was on her way to her goal, but when she got there...

Basically no one is in a position to say whether it was worth it, but if you are thinking it is a sacrifice at this stage (before you are either in academia as a post doc or in another line of work) I would query what your sacrifice ultimately for and does it exist in the way you think it does?

In an ideal world it would all be fine. In reality most areas of academia are highly competitive and require huge amounts of time, insecurity and need long hours. As a post doc, almost all of my peers are child free, work late and are hugely ambitious.

Sure, you don't have to work this way, but bear in mind you will be up against us when going for jobs and lecturers posts in the future. Can you uproot your entire family to the other end of the country because that fellowship has opened up at a distant university? I see this is the reality for most of us.

To answer the OPs question, a lot of people do leave PhDs for a number of reasons. They find the skills and experiences are helpful in finding other jobs outside academia. To be honest if I wasnt dead set on an academic career I would have left around the end of my second year.

With regard to the whole "I am a doctor" thing, I appreciate it may be helping you through things but it does smack of insecurity. It also sets you up for the whole "What are you a doctor of?"-> "Oh then you are not a real doctor then?" which makes you look worse in the long run. I stopped doing that a long time ago when I kept getting sick of the same reaction again and again.

What is a greater achievement is the fact that you have stuck with the thing, learned what you have and made a contribution to your field.

I am a postdoctoral research psychologist (not gay, not a woman), and my ex girlfriend is a clinical psychologist (not gay but a woman). As other posters have mentioned, it is competitive, but there are hundreds of people that make it every year, so why not you?

In terms of money, clinical and applied psychologists get paid more than research psychologists (to give you some indication I started on a post doc salary in the mid 20k, whereas my ex started on over the 34k a year), but you do have to spend some time accruing low paid experience otherwise you wont stand out from the crowd. True, its not paid like investment banking, so if you are looking for £100k salaries look elsewhere.

Believe me it is a science. My papers get published in journals like The American Journal of Psychiatry and Biological Psychiatry, and I lecture on the Neuroscience course at my university. (Unless you are only counting Natural sciences like Chemistry and Physics, in which case you should probably exclude other things like Medicine, Maths, electrical engineering, as these are all applied sciences too).

Any questions, you know where to come.

I think the self-funded issue is kept deliberately obscured as it serves the interests of the universities and research teams.

Instead of paying people to work for them, they actually get money from their workers. How bizzare is that? This doesn't happen in many other fields. It can (though not always) have a knock on effect. I know I was able to secure my job against another equally qualified candidate mainly on the basis I was awarded funding, whereas the other had self-funded her PhD.

I have also heard interesting economic arguments why PhDs should not be allowed to be self funded. One is that it artifically increases the amount of PhD graduates which devalues the qualification, and consequentially keeps postdoc salaries low and a career in academia insecure. It encourages universities to accept students of a lower calibre, who are judged on their ability to pay rather than their ability to research. Self funding also creates a two tier system which fosters inequity (the argument mentioned above).

Before you jump down my throat, and respond angrily, I repeat THESE ARE POINTS I HAVE HEARD FROM SENIOR ACADEMICS AND DO NOT REFLECT MY OWN OPINIONS. I personally respect everyone that does a PhD regardless of funding, but not everyone thinks the same as me.

I think you need to consider what you want to do next.

If you want a career in academia or research you will need a PhD as that is the entry criteria for most jobs in universities, and if you work outside (researching in industry) your career could stall without a PhD, although here its less clear cut. Similarly if you wanted to do something like clinical psychology (I think you mentioned that before) be aware that you will be judged against people with completed PhDs and publications and/or assistant psychologist jobs, etc.

If you want a generic graduate career an MPhil would probably be helpful in its own right, but wont guarantee you a premium (e.g larger starting salary, higher entry position).

I think part of the MPhil problem is that at one time it was a respected qualification in its own right, and people actively sought to do one. Now far more people have PhDs, those people get preference for jobs etc and the bar is raised. Generally, I also hear that people see a real stigma that an MPhil is a "failed PhD", and there is baggage associated with that (having to explain everytime someone asks "You got an MPhil? Why didn't you go for a full PhD").

If you have a proper thought out plan, an MPhil isn't necessarily an obstacle. However, bear in mind it does open far fewer doors than the full PhD.

I remember when I was doing my PhD I looked my worst (Mr Toad of Toad Hall style worst). Post docing hasn't helped much.

However, and maybe this is just a psychology thing, but the younger female PhDers here all make a tremendous amount of effort with their appearance, that sometimes coming to work feels like visiting the set of Hollyoaks. Its obvious they all spark each other off, so they have entered this "beauty arms-race". Also any changes in fashion catch on like a category 1 epidemic.

Mind you, the boys tend to start off scruffy and get scruffier. We had this exchange student from Japan who came for his first week dressed in a suit and by the time he left a few weeks later had started coming to work in Surfing shorts and sandals.

A supervisor cannot make you fail at your viva.

However, a supervisor can easily stop you getting your PhD by refusing to ever sign off on it, which will mean it never gets to viva. They can also deliberately pick a hostile examination panel who could recommend you to fail. They can simply refuse to look at your work, or sit on it for so long it becomes obsolete.

They can also set ridiculously unachievable targets and recommend you for de-registration. In my old department there was a supervisor who had grown to hate one of his students so put down that the student had to gather 100 patients worth of data before 4 months -theoretically possible but completely unrealistic on that time scale. The guy failed to do so and was kicked out of uni before you could say "unsporting".

Forget about everything else your supervisor is the key to a PhD. Libraries and facilities are everywhere.

The main thrust of the argument is more or less academic anyway (excuse the pun).

Whether a PhD was what it used to be or not is irrelevant. Academic employment is now mainly contingent on publication output in high impact journals. That is a yardstick that is not going to change any time soon, and Britain punches well above its own weight with regard to that. If any PhDer publishes their findings and develops a decent H index its an indicator that they DO have the skills and are as good as anyone else in their writing , critical analysis etc. Thats the basis on which people are hired on in my lab, and is the same at most universities.

If you are publishing your research and its cited THAT makes you a good researcher. The rest is just posturing.

And its not a case of "Well then it must be easier to now publish than before". There are far more submissions now then they ever were (I am a reviewer for several journals and have seen my work leap upwards). I assure you its very tough to be accepted.