Hi all,

I've recently decided to search for some suitable PhD programs, ideally in Immunology. However, I need advice on a few things - and didn't know where to ask the relevant questions.

I'll try and keep this brief:

I have seen different "four year integrated PhD programs" and I understand how they work, but what confuses me is when you search for a PhD on this site and it comes up with a research title - when you apply for this kind of position do you not have to go through the university to choose an appropriated course? I was under the impression that the journey of getting a PhD meant you had to go to university for 3-4 years; doing both taught lessons and research rotations in different laboratories and then you choose a topic for your postdoc. For the above type of programs do you not have any taught elements? Does it mean you spend the 3-4 years researching that one project title?

The reason I ask, is that I thought when you apply for a postdoc job it is mainly the laboratory skills you learnt in your PhD which employers look for; meaning that if a PhD program does not have rotations etc. in the beginning years then you will be quite limited in the skills you process - or am I being naive to the amount of skills a single PhD project gives you.

As for studentships, how do they work exactly? Do you apply for one and if accepted you then look for a relevant PhD?

I'm sure what makes a "good" PhD program - I feel one that maximizes immunological and advanced laboratory techniques would be best, but I just needed advice on finding a potential PhD like this.

If I am completely wrong or ignorant; please excuse me, I'm a recent BSc graduate and have not yet learnt all the implications of doing a post doc.

Thank you very much for your time, any advice is greatly appreciated.

* and if there is no taught sections in a "normal" PhD will the gap from BSc to PhD be to high?

Hi,

In a 'normal' 3 year PhD, you have a topic title/research area (either one given to you by the supervisor or one you come up with yourself), and the entire 3 years is spent researching that topic alone. In general, you don't take any courses at the uni and there are no rotations in different labs, you just get on with it! In 3 years, you certainly should be learning enough techniques and gaining enough experience to get a postdoc. Lab techniques are usually learnt from other students/postdocs/your supervisor depending on how your particular lab is set up. You apply directly for the PhD, and if accepted you then register as a student with the university but do not have to register for any specific courses.

4 year PhDs are now becoming more popular - usually, the first year of this is taught courses, and then the remaining 3 years are spent researching your specific topic. This sort of PhD is probably more suited to students coming straight from a BSc, who don't have the extra experience from a Masters.

However, you do not need to do a Masters or a 4 year PhD coming straight from a BSc; it is perfectly possible to go straight to a 3 year PhD and be successful, it just depends on how committed you are, how relevant your BSc work is to your PhD etc. For example, if your PhD work is an extension of the dissertation you did at undergrad then it makes sense to go straight into it without taking a break for a Masters.

As for funding, my PhD came with funding attached so I didn't have to apply separately for the funding part. Fully funded places are fairly common in the sciences and make life a lot easier! In my case, the topic had already been decided upon by my supervisors, so they had already secured the funding.

Hope this helps!

Connor,

Take a look at my blog about PhDs, which should probably answer your questions. In a European or British PhD, a taught component is not normal unless a technical weakness of the candidate needs to be addressed. It is all about research of a single topic to produce new findings and an original contribution to your chosen field of knowledge. You will have two or three supervisors to give you basic guidance, with an examination comittee of two examiners, one internal to the Univeristy and one external from another University against which you have to defend your PhD thesis. A third examiner may rarely be appointed if specific subject knowledge is required to examine the candidate. The examiners are appointed by the University, normally at the suggestion of your supervisors.

http://www.wearthesis.talktalk.net

There are now 4 year combinations as Smoobles says, which may follow a 1+3 model of a year of Masters or equivalent level teaching then then three years of research in your chosen topic.

The North American 'Graduate School' model may be what you're thinking about, where you might start off in classes to give you the necessary skills before you move onto an original research component later. There wil be a couple of advisors (effectively supervisors) with an exam comittee of several members with at least one external to the University against which you have to defend your dissertation or thesis. The candidate has moe influence in the American model I believe as to who the examiners will be (who should be familiar with the candidate's field of study).

If someone can be more precise about the American model, by all means correct me.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

What makes a good PhD? It's the PhD that gives you a plan B. Remember that the employment statistics of academics/PhDs is highly skewed. It's a positive skew with a few people getting a proper sustainable job in academia and most try to get by on post-docs and mundane jobs that they could have got without having to do a PhD. Remember that the post-doc is not the end, it's supposed to provide you with a room to sleep and some basic food until you find something more permanent.

Your PhD doesn't change the world. 4 - 5 years down the line, you are now smarter but the world is still the same. You go to a recruitment fair (of university), you only hear from people who are successful. You never hear from a homeless man with a DPhi from Oxford.

The scientific jobs in the private sector are competitive. Just be prepared. The key is to gain relevant work experience as you study for your PhD.

If you are over 26 years old, I will seek professional advices before committing to a PhD programme. Talk to as many people as you can before you decide to go ahead with the PhD. It's likely that you will be 30 - 31 when you look for your first job. It's not the end of the world, but most of your colleagues are living comfortably on 50 - 70k (those who took the grad job at 21) and you have to start on 20k (for a scientific job in the private sector).

If you are over 30 years old, I wouldn't do it unless you have a clear plan on how you can capitalise on your PhD.