I had to read a couple of papers back during preparation of further papers.

One could have been sigificantly shorter. Also, I found a minor typo in a couple of earlier papers (for scientist types, I mixed up atomic percent and weight percent with SEM / EDX data). The findings of the papers wern't affected, however. Anyone worth their salt should spot the error (though the paper referees missed it), worth a smile at most rather than a critical error in findings.

It's sometimes better not to read back after the fact unless you have to, as you start wondering what other mistakes you might have made. :-)

I am a native English speaker and even we make mistakes. :-)

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

The joint company / Uni. PhD I applied for and the director refused to recognise was a CASE award in conjunction with an EPSRC bursary.

I guess it depends upon the company and the Uni. as to how well equipped they are respectvely. I found that when I finally did take up a PhD a few years later, the Uni. had better equipment than I'd seen in industry previously. That said, the Uni. concern had got it's hands on some serious grant money including that for my PhD.

Interestingly, my PhD Uni., a new University, was better equipped than the Russel Group Uni. where I did my aforementioned disasterous second post-doc. The new Uni.then closed down the group where I did my PhD, leaving all this cutting edge equipment to gather dust. I suspect the closure was ultimately over as little as restricting another group's access to an X-Ray Diffractometer (one of the more basic pieces of equipment in my PhD group's possession) as we needed to use it ourselves. By closing us, the other group got the X-Ray Diffractometer to themselves and discarded most of the rest.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

This sounds like a teaching company scheme. You probably find you have to register for MPhil first then at the halfway stage, if there is evidence of sufficient new data or original findings, be upgraded to PhD.

The finances may vary and it may be that a funding council may provide the money as a bursary for fees and student maintenance. The company will have a project in mind that may involve a new development (allowing you use of their facilities), but need a knowledge input from an appropriate University. The company may additionally provide extra money for the student to travel between University and company site (may literally be half a country apart) and even extra money for the student to live on.

I applied for one of these a few years before I did my PhD, however, a director at the company involved refused to recognise the project and it fell through. The financial model I describe was that I was expecting to work to. One of my predecessors on my PhD project worked to the above model also.

I know of a Swedish student who was upgraded to PhD from MPhil (teaching company). Whilst a UK University, the company was also based in Sweden and the funding was provided from Sweden.

If you do a PhD by this approach, you can gain more salable works experience with a company that leads to a real world product development and this helps dispel the so-called 'academic' air of PhDs emerging from Universities that many employers say we have.

Note the company is likely to want you to sign a confidentiality agreement, meaning your PhD thesis and related data may not be released to the public domain for up to five years. You'll find the company may veto or heavily vet information meant to appear in conference or journal publications. It's not all positive and and company politics may be an extra dimension you have to contend with.

Other financial models may well apply, so anyone else want to contribute to this discussion?


Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Did this get sorted out?

If not, I'd suggest 'blueeyedgirl' start looking for a new supervisor.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

There are research council funded PhDs, which are effectively 'paid' (i.e. fees paid plus tax-free stipend). I've listed some of these in my blog (look under question 7 - funding).

http://www.wearthesis.talktalk.net

I can't help you with specifics as I was scince / engineering-based. Others should be able to give you more specific help.

As I did my PhD in the UK and it was my home country. I'm not sure about availability of htese for foreign students coming to the UK. There might also be a difference for students of EU and non-EU origin.

Sometimes, a foreign government or organisation may fund a student from their home country to go to another country to study though this is more normally for specific specialist or science and engineering education.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

The amount of data depends upon your project and I would say quality of data should be more important.

However, a PhD is no ordinary course you're setting out on. The fact you ask the above question suggests you've alot to learn about what is generally an intensive research project in whatever subject you choose.

My blog (link following) will offer you some general advice on PhDs in general.

Perhaps he feels inadequate because he has or, more likely, had a PhD-holding other half who's made a success of herself whilst his own career has hit the buffers. :-)


Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

I myself came back from the real world at the age of 30 to do my science-based PhD. I personally felt it was the right time and my real world career was going nowhere fast. Basically, I needed a reboot and a PhD was a way of doing that. I specifically chose a science/engineering-based PhD with an eye on employability after it was finished. Admittedly things did not go as planned after, but circumstances beyond my control (some I've mentioned on here, some personal and private) have contributed to that.

Some chose to do PhD straight from degree and that to me is okay too. There is also doing a PhD for the love of research and our subject - that is also okay. We all want to do what makes us happy as a person and that high flying (city???) career you suggest as an idealised model may be for you but not for others. We don't all fit into your idealised model.

I'm aware you've been banned for perpetually reviving old threads (bad boy!!!), however, I hope you're able to read this as I felt your remarks could not go without response.

I've written the above admittedly from a science and engineering point of view. Anyone choose to follow up from a humanities perspective?

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

If we all followed your career model, they where would many of the ideas and theories (humanities also) that become everyday life in future years come from. Where would the lecturers and academics that teach the next generation of scientists and engineers come from? You need us. You need those people who've been at the head of their respective fields to be the teachers and researchers that do their bit in helping society develop.

As regards waiting until we are 50 and doing a PhD as a career break, it is best for many of us to do a PhD earlier in life as by that stage many have other commitments such as kids and mortgages to look after (respect to those to manage those commitments with a PhD).

To finish, a PhD is a full time job (hence me disliking the word 'studentship', but that's another argument). Given many of us have put in 12 to 16 hours days just how are we supposed to develop our 'proper' careers alongside a PhD (even part-time, it's tough)? To many of us, we wish whether in academia or in the real world to work as serious scientists and engineers or in another chosen profession. If we find ourselves a few years behind on the ladder or wage scale, that goes back to a misunderstanding in the real world of what a PhD is.

You refer to (some) PhD and academic people as arrogant. May I suggest that the reverse is partially true, in that some in the real world look down on us, pigeon holing us as having no clue about the real world, disorganised or elitist? We can't all be leading city banker types who live life perpetually in the fast lane (again, if we were, where would people in professions come from).

(continued...)

ReadinPikey,

Having read what you've got to say, I gather you're from a 'city' background. Much of what you have had to say suggests the only reason we should do something in life is to enhance our career prospects. There's very much a feeling in your posts of get your degree at 21/22, perhaps do a relevant masters then hit the career ladder running at full speed immediately after.

You seem to regard PhDs as irrelevant in the jobs market, without considering that a PhD is a full time project requiring a set of skills (thoroughness, data analysis - which can be very relevant to the real world, work ethic, the ability to spot original data or generate original findings). Unfortunately, your opinion is shared by a good many in the real world. I do concede PhDs seem to be poor at selling themselves.

We all have our reasons for doing a PhD and for me, I desperately wanted to undertake a challenging project that produced new findings and an original contribution to (in my case) science. That was the best way for me to do it.

You don't seem to understand that a lot of the science and technology in use today perhaps started in a funding council funded research project in collaboration with a University and perhaps an industrial partner. Your average PhD or post-doc may effectively be assessing a concept idea, which will become an everyday item or safety critical system in years to come. Those funded projects are where a lot of ideas gain their first breath of life. And we have to work hard, very hard, at least as hard as you in your professional exams you do alongside your career. I don't think those exams are bullsh*t, as they assess competency in your profession, say to reach chartered status in a chosen society and that helps employers assess your potential abilities.

(continued...)