In my field, most people do their PhDs in 4 to 5 years.

I was told the completion time was 4/5 years by a professor during my induction, I thought "nooo..I'll have it done in the 3"...well that didn't pan out!

I do know some people who have their PhDs finished at the beginning of their write-up period i.e., just over 3 years, and I think it is very possible if a person is savvy enough to pick a relatively straightforward topic to research. Those that do complete within the 3-4 year period generally only have 1 publication or none, and have not done other stuff...eg. research visits/fellowships etc. Ultimately, they are in a better position because they end up with a job quicker (...which means a string of publications isn't necessary).

I have found that 'generally' science students to complete on time more often than non-science subjects.

You don't mention it involves downloading a software programme.

Hi there,

Go for a subject that you will be able to tolerate for 3/4 years (or maybe longer). If you already have doubts about the subject area then seriously consider whether this is right for you.

Also, you don't mention if you're funded or not? Does this PhD offer come with a good funding package?



"Also, I have heard that doing a phd at the same uni as your undergrad is frowned upon - is that true?"

I've never heard this before. Basically, you go to the uni that most suits your needs for a PhD. If anything, staying at your UG uni shows that you are liked and they want to keep you.

Now I'm not suggesting these two colleges are not legit...but an awful lot of private colleges similar to these set-ups are basically conduits for young foreigners to get student visas/low paid work.

With respect to working for them, the word barge pole springs to mind.

======= Date Modified 22 Sep 2008 17:30:50 =======
I agree with the other replies... you need to take some time out (but not too long). If you think you can finish your PhD, I'd recommend you crack on with it...otherwise, you are likely to languish in this situation for years.



A lot of the problems you describe are experienced by a good 50% of PhD students...particularly being broke, being lonely, no career, thinking that you've let everything pass you by etc. Signing up for a PhD is basically a process of deferred gratification...we reap the benefits 4,5,6 years down the road. So I don't think you should see issues such as personally problematic to you...but rather an intrinsic element of the PhD process.



I don't know where you are in Canada, but I have friends in Toronto who overcame loneliness by joining local community groups (...Canada is a lot more community spirited compared to the UK).



With respect to extending your stay in Canada, if you can get an official interruption to your studies, you might be able to apply for a under 30s temporary work visa (rather than a student visa), which would allow you to do some work or catch up on research.

This issue has been raised in other threads on here (if I recall correctly....a Canadian student was recently implying a Canadian PhD is better than a UK PhD in order to justify his choice to research in Canada rather than here), and the issue tends to relate to the sciences.

I don't know if there really is a tangible quality difference (as distinguished by a difference in the structure of PhD programme)...but I have a feeling a lot it boils down to protectionism issues.

With respect to the Arts, I've never heard anyone mention a quality difference and I do know a lot of British PhDs who now hold assistant. prof. posts in America.

However, if you plan to pursue an academic career in the US, it's probably more practical to have a US PhD.

I should add that's a non-science perspective.

I've spoken informally to professors who are in the midst of recruiting and they have all said 2/3 publications plus a PhD (or near complete PhD) is fine for a first lecturership job.

Surely one fish must have a 'Dr' title :-)

======= Date Modified 19 Sep 2008 13:45:31 =======
Benm, it depends where you want to do your PhD, and where you are studying your masters.

Just to stress....a 65% mark for a UK degree is normally equivalent to a much higher mark in other countries. For example, a 65% UK degree mark, is around a 85% in a Canadian degree.

From a UK admission's perspective, you need at least a 3.2 GPA from a US university to get into a PhD programme (this equates to the lower end of an upper second class honours UK degree...most good places ask for at least a 3.5 GPA).

Rankings are generally rubbish and just loosely reflect the general traditional hierarchy of universities. Kipo, I wouldn't overly concern yourself with them. Universities may move up and down the tables, but generally the status quo remains.

The new RAE ranking will be an interesting read as they will break down the quality of research in every department on a proportional basis, and not just give a blanket 5* or whatever. Now we'll know that while half of a department is 5* quality, the other half is complete crap etc. Of course from a student point of view, this is helpful...if I were a faculty member, I'd very concerned about this.

======= Date Modified 18 Sep 2008 10:43:39 =======
I've taken longer than I expected to write-up, but then I am adding additional new ideas/research as I go along.

It often depends on what a student means by 'writing-up' i.e., have they finished all their reading and are basically writing-up notes/drafts into a polished form (in which case I'd say 3-6 mths is fine), or are they still adding new material, reading papers, adding new ideas (in which case it can be 12 mths or more).

I've re-focused my thesis and added lots of new material...I've spilled over 12 mths of writing-up time.

If you're aiming for 100,000 words...I'd say a year is necessary, but if you have finished your research i.e., no more articles to read etc. then writing 5 chapters should be no problem within that time limit.

I would add 'Personality' to the list - there is no point being the ideal candidate if other members of staff find it difficult to work with that person. Otherwise, the list is fairly thorough.

I'm not sure why you list age...age should not be on a CV.

======= Date Modified 13 Sep 2008 16:46:40 =======
You should submit a formal grievance about the post-doc guy and also the lack of support by your supervisor. Document everything that happened, dates, who was there, what was said etc., and also document the fact your supevisor has now accepted your side of events (presumably he has now witness the guy's behaviour or heard about it off someone else), and also the effects on your personal well-being.



There is absolutely no reason why you should put up with this type of behaviour and a university would take such a complaint very, very seriously (particularly in light of growing student litigation).



Essentially the post-doc involved should face university disciplinary procedure and receive a formal warning (if not be fired for sexual harassment). Your supervisor should no longer have this guy working alongside you - it's very bad management on his behalf. If this happened in a corporate office...a head would roll. It's shocking how people behave in research/HE environments.



Have other members of your team witnessed or been bullied by the post-doc? What are their opinions of his behaviour?