I'm enrolled in a very weak Economics PhD programme at a relatively new department; with no taught masters programmes and no formal graduate coursework.

I've been able to teach myself Stata/LaTeX/WinEdt, but can't make up for the coursework.

I also did my undergrad here :-(
I won a prestigious research scholarship and qualified for a "fast-track" integrated masters/PhD.
Now I don't even have a Masters degree to fall back on.

I have little hope of getting a decent research job since my PhD programme has no coursework and no recognition to speak of.

My supervisor is a data-mining empiricist. He cares little about the integrity of my research proposal, is rushing me into using bad data, and devotes no time to discussing methodological issues.

On the flip side, I have accumulated a lot of research experience and skills in the six years-- much of it from quant colleagues outside of my dept-- but all to the detriment of progressing my PhD.

Should I stay put, get a crap PhD which will be impossible to publish, and teach principles of micro for the rest of my life? Or run away, join a proper M.Sc/PhD programme, get into a proper research job?

Hi Bruscar,

seems a difficult dilemma.
Obviously your view may still change over time, yet you seem to have very strong feelings regarding your PhD at the moment. It may be a good idea to speak to an independent person or for yourself to put all the pros and cons of a decision on a piece of paper to make it easier to decide how to continue or to stop.
As always with these issues you are the only person who can make the final decision

Bruscar, I dont understand this: "I have little hope of getting a decent research job since my PhD programme has no coursework and no recognition to speak of."

Isn't your PhD an official registration at an official institution? Because even if you are the first PhD student there, it still would be a recognised status. And not every PhD place comes with coursework. I don't know anyone with coursework in UK to be honest. Apart from usual research training on the first year (I didn't have any of that, just 1-day long seminars).

(long post, continuing)

Sorry if I misunderstood your situation. I don't understand what a "crap PhD" means. I mean, your research is what you make of it. Every PhD student at every university can have opinion differences with their supervisors. These can be solved in time. You can always bring it to a level that you are happy with. By finishing this PhD, you are not really committing yourself to anything for the rest of your life. You sound very upset, every problem is solvable. Don't quit, but make your PhD work for you and your future.

It sounds like some of these are issues that you could have, or should have thought about before applying. i.e if you did your undergrad there, you'd have a good idea if it was a weak programme, you would know roughly the research interests of your supervisor, and hopefully the structure of the course.

So take control of your PhD, tell your supervisor your concerns and the direction you want your research to take (taking into account his advice, and research interests).

Hmm, in fact, in all universities PhD students dont do any courses, so just work on their research. So, how 'crap' is one's PhD really depends only on how good quality PhD thesis they produce.

Ok, I'm starting to feel more positive already since reading all your posts, so... thank you
RE coursework: a "good" economics PhD is seen as one with graduate level coursework at least in the first year. I'm not making this up, honestly! For some reason, the world has decided that economics PhDs need a thorough indoctrination before being unleashed to wreck the world
RE did I not know it was a weak dept when I joined: honestly at 21 I didn't realise there was such a difference between departments. A good teaching department doesn't automatically make a good research dept. And here, emphasis has always been on the former. But just try getting a job in 2007 with a teaching-only CV!

I am curious to know what people think about my "fast-track" integrated Masters/PhD route?

In my case there was nothing fast about it... just because I had so much to learn (theory and tools) before I could even start.

I think the biggest drawback is never obtaining a recognised Masters qualification prior to finishing the PhD (my uni doesn't award MPhils during the PhD process). It's all or nothing.

It's all or nothing almost everywhere. But you play the game to win, so that shouldn't be a problem?

Re research training and coursework: increasing trend originating from US universities, but benefits are subject to debate. A PhD is not a MBA, so I don't know why you are so keen on coursework. Besides, I am sure your department/university offers a number of training courses for research skills etc. which you can attend.

Apart from that, a PhD is a long, lonely and sometimes difficult endeavour so just start reading...

just one last word. A PhD is a PhD (as long as it's not from Belford or similar). So if you sell yourself well you don't necessarily need to teach microeconomics all your life!

Post-PhD, your job prospects inside academia will depend on quality of your publications.

And in the real world a PhD is just a PhD (people might ask you:"what is an academic publication")

Thanks Otto.
Our newest faculty member has her PhD from a coursework-intensive US department. She's already made comments about the lack of coursework here... but maybe that's just bias towards the type of system she came from.

Importantly though, she got an MPhil for completing her first year coursework. We get nothing like that in our "integrated" system.

For example: if I apply for an academic job in the morning, I can be binned at the shortlist stage because I don't hold a Masters qualification. That's despite being within 6/12 months of submitting a PhD draft. It's a bit unjust