Dear Colleagues,

I have recently submitted, and looking for a job (non-academic one).

One question in relation to job application.

As those who are in limbo between submission and viva, can we apply for jobs that require a PhD? There is still a viva ahead, after all.

Also, how to indicate your current status in HR terms, especially in pre-designed on line application drop down lines? The American "all but dissertation" is not really an appropriate definition, is it.

Thanks a lot, and good luck with your theses!

Yes you can apply, you just to make it clear on your CV/application that your PhD hasn't been awarded yet.

I'd use ABD if it's an option, since, although it's practically a pass by the time you are at that stage in the US and not necessarily a pass in the UK, it's the closest to it. If there's a place to write a covering note / letter in the application then mention it in that.

Hi ae7,

If it were an academic (postdoc) job, I'd say indicate you've got a PhD and qualify it with "viva pending" elsewhere on the application. Frankly, if you fail the viva, you wouldn't be taking it anyway. Certainly in my school, it was expected that you'd be applying for post-docs even in advance of submission and generally, considered almost a certainty that people at that stage would pass.

For a non-academic job, if a PhD isn't required, I'd put "PhD student" as your status, as technically, you still are. You can give a projected completion date elsewhere on your application. Try figuring it out, once you pass your viva on condition of corrections... (still a student, according to the Cambridge University website, which is the only reference I can find to it).

For the record, the Americans don't seem to fully get our system. The deal is that in the UK, we tend to specialise earlier. They're still studying God-knows-how-many-subjects at high school at 18, therefore their bachelors degrees are like UK ordinary degrees... so they're still playing catch-up when they get to doctoral level. Unfortunately, it tends to get viewed as "Brits only spend three or four years doing their doctorates, so their PhD's are worth less than ours". That is BS (no pun intended)!

Thanx, TreeofLife and SimonG, for your very informative replies.

For a non-academic path, sometimes a position would need to be occupied before an expected "viva + correction" period, so I wonder how an HR department deals with all the outcomes possible there.

And, TreeofLife, I would not agree that the ABD comes closest to the inbetween a submission and a viva, since, according to wiki, an ABD status implies that there is still a need in a dissertation to be written(!): "To complete the degree, the student must carry out the proposed research and write the dissertation that defines a PhD or equivalent research doctorate."

I'd appreciate some more input, if possible, I think this will benefit the forum in general. Thanks!

Ae7, yes that's true, but from what I have seen, their dissertations are nothing like the ones in the UK, at least not in Biology anyway. Many of them have a short introduction, little or no methodology and then the papers they have had published, or at least submitted for publication.

Additionally, the viva system is different and they often just give an exit seminar followed by an hour or so's discussion with their thesis committee, where it's practically unheard of to fail and they are very unlikely to have to correct anything in their thesis other than a few typos.

So 'all but dissertation' seems like a lot of work in the UK, but it's not so much in the US.

But yes, this is just my view from people in one Biology department in the University of California system, so yes, more opinions on the subject are probably beneficial!

I don't think they are playing catch up to be honest. In order to be accepted on to a graduate programme, they have to have taken certain modules relevant to the programme and these are the same sort of modules that we will be taking.

When they start a PhD, they then have to do 2 years of classes alongside their research. Some of these are second or third year undergraduate classes and some are specific graduate classes. This means that they have got a very broad biological background, then a narrow section of more relevant classes to their research area and then a highly specialised knowledge of their subject area.

Compare this to some UK biologists, who may have transferred in from chemistry or physics, and you get a picture of very little broad background knowledge with highly specific knowledge of their own personal subject area. Such students have to do a lot more reading around the subject as a consequence.

Add the fact that the US students attend more conferences, speak at more seminars and generally have more things to put on their CVs than we do, you may find that they actually fare better in the scientific community.

TreeofLife: I believe there is essentially a good deal of truth behind what I said.

I was fortunate enough to spend over a year in the States doing research in an institution there, so do have the benefit of exposure to their system. I do not have a downer on their system inasmuch as the quality of PhDs they are turning out. I do however have an issue with job postings that stipulate requirement for a PhD, for which the holder must have spent at least five years studying.

Whether or not it is a good thing for people to specialise at school after age 16 (as in the UK) or continue studying a broad spectrum of subjects (as in the US) is open to debate and is probably dependent on what someone wants to go on and do after leaving high school. I would suggest the US system is not that conducive to preparing students for entry to university degree-level study and on the basis of the shocking lack of [scientific/biological] knowledge I saw in some of the first year undergrads there, I would stand by what I said. Having said that, although I did my A-levels many years ago (Hint: I'm old enough to have done O-levels at 16), I did enjoy a relatively un-traumatic transition (academically, at least) between A-levels and university so think I was well prepared. Conversely judging by what I have encountered with first year undergraduates at my institution over the last few years, they have found the transition between A-levels and university to be a shock, and I am presuming this is the result of the year-on-year increasing "easiness" of the A-level exams.

Nonetheless TreeofLife, you make some interesting points. Perhaps a greater degree of structuring of UK PhDs - which I believe is slowly happening - is the answer? But I still think 5-6 years is too long.

PS: ae7 - sorry for hijacking your thread!

With regard to your original posting, ae7, I am not entirely sure whether the non-academic job for which you've applied requires you to have a PhD. I presume you are also applying for academic posts. I would think if the non-academic post requires a PhD, they would understand the system whereas if not, they may not. Nonetheless, there is nothing to stop you taking the job, making it clear to them that you would have to have a day (or two, depending on distance) off for the viva, if you were appointed. This is reasonable.

Regarding academic posts, if it helps, one of my fellow PhD students got a postdoc job and started before her viva and returned for the event. A round trip of over 600 miles, I think, so no mean feat. She passed of course, but undoubtedly there would've been an issue if she'd failed. I guess she got a good reference, which was strong enough to convince the recruiting PI et al. that her getting through was almost certain.

As for HR departments dealing with it, that's their problem. They're not the ones who decide who to appoint. They're just administrators. As long as you've done your best to represent your status on the application form, allowing for the relative inflexibility of such in some cases - and most especially on on-line portals - and the selectors understand it, no one can fault you.

Good luck!

I'm currently in the US as part of my PhD so I've got a pretty good idea of the system here too. I can see the merits and disadvantages of both systems, but I have still found that US students I have met have more in depth knowledge of their general research area than some of the UK students that I know. Obviously I'm dealing with small subsets of very large populations so maybe this is an inaccurate view.

On the other hand, US students also tend to be more confident and outgoing, and sometimes I wonder if it's just that UK students are more willing to admit what they don't know and therefore appear less knowledgeable than their US counterparts.

I agree 5 to 6 years is too long, but then again, if someone gave me funding for that long I'd be more than happy to continue living the student life!