A UK PhD is typically awarded on the basis of a thesis, successfully defended at a viva voce examination. As such, PhD students in the majority of cases spend 3-4 years full-time, working on their theses, presenting at conferences, and (in some, not all cases) publishing book chapters and peer-reviewed journal articles. Unlike their counterparts in North American universities (who take courses, present at conferences, publish and teach undergraduate courses), many PhD students in the UK graduate without any teaching experience either as teaching assistants, or as module tutors/convener, etc.

Without such an experience, it’s very unlikely in the current climate that a PhD graduate would securing a lecturing position—well except in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia or Somalia (no pun intended). If one is unable to secure a postdoctoral position which pays around £28,000+ pa, one would more than likely (in a bid to remain within the academe) settle for Research Assistantships. The majority of these are fixed term contracts which require bachelors and masters degrees (not necessarily PhDs), and therefore pay between £23,000 and £25,000pa. The fixed term nature of Research Assistantships implies that many PhDers who settle for such positions have no permanent jobs. Competing with colleagues who possess substantial teaching experience on top of 2-3 postdoctoral positions seems daunting.

So, is a UK PhD worth doing if it doesn't come with a guaranteed Teaching Assistantship?

Your thoughts, please!

From my understanding from speaking to many academics in social science field, they have all said teaching experience is not really necessary. All that is important is publications. As although universities are supposed to be for students to learn. Really now they are based on making money so important thing is to be able to demonstrate that you can publish in high quality journals and ultimately bring in the money. It is generally assumed if you can do these you will be able to teach. I have never heard of anyone being employed "because they are a good teacher" "or having good teaching experience" its just about them "being a leader in the field" or good "publication record" I think would be nice if they considered teaching as important but in real world all that matters is money! That is why in the UK we are taught to do the best research possible and publish as much as possible in the best journals and the rest will take care of itself.

According to Audrey Williams June, "Economics Ph.D.'s on the academic job market had fewer jobs to apply for in 2013 than a year earlier, according to new data from the American Economic Association. The number of new academic job openings listed with the association fell 6.6 percent, to 1,924, in 2013. However, the number of nonacademic jobs rose slightly, from 856 to 866".

What will happen if the academic job opening continues to drop, but PhD students are allowed to rise? :-)
The university will become richer? The students will be poorer? :-)
PhD students have to look for other jobs other than teaching assistantship...
Perhaps the government should help...

Montanita, stop speaking to many academics, and stop being spoon-fed. You're, presumably, a researcher. So, research it! Browse academic job websites (www.jobs.ac.uk; jobs.timeshighereducation.co.uk; www.higheredjobs.com) and you'll realise that under the person specifications for each advert, an essential criteria for virtually every advertised job is: "significant/substantial teaching experience in higher education or similar". In the current job climate, publications alone would NOT get you a lectureship (when other PhDers have similar amount/quality of publications, teaching/tutorial experience, conference papers, etc.)

@MeaninginLife. That's so true! You're on point.

im just going from my experience for the new lecturers that I have met in my university, one of the top in the UK. They told me they did not have hardly any teaching experience but they did have a good solid publication record from their PhD. They also said most important thing is to network. As its like everything else if you have met the people in a conference etc they will more likely give you an interview and get the job. I overheard the other day senior people in my department talking about who to hire, and they were saying who would they most like to go to the pub with!! so think it often pure luck if get a job like in any industry

I think though everyone knows its almost impossible to get a job in academia. On my first day they threw a ball into all the new PhD people, and the one person caught it, they said that's how many of you will become a professor if your lucky. I think no-one has any illusions from my peer group we all know we are unlikely to make it, but guess everyone hopes they are different. Think we all see a PhD as a not a very well paid job but an interesting experience. Think anyone who gets a PhD then complains how difficult it is to get a job must have done no research into the job market. Even if you have loads of teaching experience still highly unlikely to get a job as there will always be someone else with more.

Firstly there are very few UK universities nowadays that do not offer opportunities for PhD students to teach in the humanities and social sciences (which are the areas where teaching experience is really expected in a recent PhD as there isn't the same postdoc structure there is in the natural sciences). The two that are generally lacking in this respect are Oxford and Cambridge because they teach in a very different way (one-to-one supervisions) to other UK universities and have more PhD students and staff so fewer opportunities. Often these are the only two universities US scholars have experienced, so the myth that British PhDs haven't had teaching experience gets perpetuated.
OP - most other good universities will offer teaching opportunities, and increasingly offer PhD students the chance to take part of the HE teaching qualification. It might not be a guaranteed teaching assistantship and it will almost certainly be dependent on the PhD student's communication skills and background knowledge (no-one is going to put someone in the classroom if they think it's not in the undergraduates' interests), but the opportunities exist for small group teaching (Lectures are less likely). It is something to ask about when applying. It matters - with £9k fees in England, the ability to teach well is a consideration for those hiring a lecturer. But you also need publications to get on the short list.
But it's like everything else during a PhD - proactive students get out there and go to conferences, start to publish, teach etc, but many will not bother and convince themselves that the PhD alone is enough or that they attend such a prestigious university that people will jump to hire them. Those who did ARE more likely to get that part-time RA job or that maternity leave teaching cover because they have better c.vs, and for most people, it's those not very well-paid and often exploitative jobs immediately post-PhD that allow them to get more publications out and then become competitive for lectureships.

Since when did speaking to academics and listening their opinions become a bad idea? Sounds like a type of research to me. Why would you consider the opinions of someone actually working in the field you are interested in to be irrelevant?

Also, just because something is stated on a job application does not make it true. Do you think a candidate is not going to be hired because they don't have one of the 'essential' skills mentioned, even the interviewer likes them and perhaps their know their referee? This world is still about how you present yourself and who you know.

Essential skills listed are often intentionally ambiguous anyway. What, for example, is classed as 'substantial experience in teaching'?

In one educational research, students were asked whether they preferred the content knowledge should be related to certain "interesting hobbies" of students. For example, if students like "X-men", then the teachers should relate the concepts to X-men...
However, I feel that the learning of a concept should not be often related to pop culture...
For example, a chemical concept could be related to art, physics, biology, ethics, food, environment, history... not just X-men or angry bird...

On the other hand, some educational research studies suggest the importance of using computer in teaching. However, I was told that one lecturer only uses a marker, but his lessons often end in applause. Essentially, teaching philosophy may be as important as "substantial experience in teaching".