Well obviously there isn't an official grade such as 'mediocre' or whatever but informally, people associated with the candidates and/or topics will tend to differentiate between PhDs by various means.

Do you mean completed PhDs? Do you not think that they will put more emphasis on publications, PostDoc, supervisor? In what specific context will they differentiate? Job interviews for academic positions?

I don't think so.

I don't think that all PhD theses are equally brilliant: you either get the PhD or you don't, and the same thesis could be viewed very differently by different examiners. Only last week an internal examiner told me that many examiners don't even read the thesis, they just skin the introduction and the discussion. On the other hand, a decent examiner will read all of it, and therefore, perhaps, will be more critical.

Not "skin", sorry. I meant "skim".

I can see both sides. A PhD should be judged as that alone but the reality is people, including me, look at RAE outcomes, the University studied at and things such as Russell group, supervisors etc. A PhD is not judged on its own but by a host of factors.

I'm not speculating, I'm commenting from observation. Publications are the top priority - but many PhDs don't get publications out until after submission, if at all and some topics do not generate more than one publication. I've seen some very problematic PhDs get through because it would have been inappropriate to fail the candidate but it is generally known that they were problematic (and that's as much detail as I'll go into here).

Examination standards do vary a lot. That's why many supervisors insist on getting the toughest external they can - they know it will give credibilty to the award.

Well, if what you say is true, then this is a corrupt system in the UK.

As the next generation of academics, maybe we have the obligation to ensure it will be less corrupt in the future!

Well I'm not sure I think it's corrupt Jouri - I think it's inevitable because it's really quite impossible to impose a single standard on all PhDs from all insitutions in all subjects. The system we have does a good job and in general does maintain a minimum standard.

You completely contradict yourself now.

Fact is, if PhDs which are "problematic" get awarded based on questionable factors, something IS wrong with the system, big time.

I guess it depends how you define 'problematic' and i'm not entirely certain as don't know all the details. My impression is, that in most cases the problems are dealt with and a minimum standard is achieved. But it is a big deal to fail a student and there is probably a grey area depending on your examiners. I have seen these problems arise when there has been inadequate supervision - otherwise they are dealt with earlier one way or another. So I would say the underlying problem is inadequate supervision - a subject very dear to my heart...

I know this is completely off the original thread, but I think Jouri id right in that we as the next generation of academics should try to improve the PHD process. It would be great if we could do something to safe guard against poor supervision via training and auditing or something. I think our PhD system does allow corruption to flourish where it would like to.

Oh and back on thread, maybe a god way to judge the value of Russell Group/Red brick universities to you is to take a look at departments in which you would like to work and see where the academics there got their PhDs from. I've done this and found that PhDs held by academics in the departments I wanted to work for were from either top unis or had supervisors who were at top of their field, most usually both. Best of luck Jouri.

Oh sorry - I mean best of luck Bertie!!

From the other side of the fence I see the following factors as being important in your post PhD career.

- Number of publications (as many have commented upon) but in high impact journals.
- Amount of time taken to complete thesis (nearer 3 years the better).
- Extra transferable skills in your PhD (quantitative mathematical skills/ computer/ scientific are all sought after).
-Your ability to win funding (grants, awards, scholarships at your stage, study grants as a post-dog).
- Contacts in the field.

- Where you got your PhD from, (but not for the reasons you may expect ie. prestige from name of uni). Highly ranked institutions often have cutting edge equipment, are well resourced and have high performing research teams that publish often and sit on the editorial boards of journals. It stands to reason that if you are from one of these elite universities you are more likely to be an author/co-author, as there is more output from these unis altogether.

PhDs are not considered equal. How would a university which is ranked lower than another actually be on equal terms for post grad degrees? Especially as UG tables are constructed using things like equipment spend, facilities, international reputation (it's a new category) as factors by which to judge. They also apply to PG.

Institution is important for various reasons. For example, as stated, 'better' unis get more funding and thus get more cutting edge equipment, the likes of which poorer institutions can't afford therefore will not be able to publish on. Also, loads of people, even in the same field as your PhD, use uni names as a way of shifting through CVs.

Publications are very important and name is not the most important thing but let's not lie, it is near the top of the list.