Talk:Doctor of Philosophy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Job Prospect of US PhD's

Under the US portion the text reads "However, in recent years, in light of large scale faculty retirement in North American universities and colleges, academic employment prospects for freshly minted PhD graduates are improving."

I have a hard time believing this is true in a general enough sense that it can be stated. Does anyone have any figures? The overproduction of PhD's in physics, biology and other scientific areas has been well documented for decades and, as far as I know, continues to this day. If there is no source saying otherwise, I'd like to remove this quote.PitOfBabel 08:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Occupational Outlook Handbook (published by the US bureau of labor statistics) lists professor jobs as growing "much faster than average" over the next few years. In addition, In a recent article (by money magazine, I think--I'll look for it), "college professor" was listed as the number 2 "best" job to have in terms of future market growth. I can't speak for industry-related Ph.D. jobs, but the outlook for academics is good. -Nick^talk 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That is so far out of touch with what new Ph.D.'s are seeing that it is ridiculous. Roadrunner 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the Handbook says just that. However, it also says most of those positions are in part time work and that "competition will remain tight for tenure-track positions at 4-year colleges and universities." Part time university positions constitute a horrific return on the investment needed to obtain a PhD, and are a direct result of the vast overproduction of PhD's over the past twenty years. While I won't be looking for academic employment soon (if ever), those around me doing so are having a terrible time. Obviously this does depend on their choice of study, but the fact that how good your prospects are depends so heavily on what you studied is enough to make the statement from the article I quoted deserving of suspicion. Thanks for your response, I welcome the discussion, and if you still feel the statement holds I'll happily leave it. I would appreciate my dissent staying in the talk section. PitOfBabel 20:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dissent? Good exchange of views I'd say - just how the talkpage should work! :) --Charlesknight 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed the statement. It is **sooooo** out of touch with what anyone in the field sees, that I don't think it should be left in. Roadrunner 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 Bureau of labor statistics

My comment about the bureau of labor statistics noting the increasingly part time nature of new PhD university jobs was removed. It shouldn't be. The occupational handbook is often used as an example of how professor jobs are growing "much faster than average." Including only that information is deceptive - the jobs are increasing faster than average, but this has been done by way of reducing the average quality of those jobs. I believe that the handbook failed by not addressing this issue more directly, but others might disagree. Those reading the article need to have both sides pointed out.

One possibility for shortening that sentence is to move the last part that was deleted back to where the Bureau handbook was first mentioned. The sentence probably also needs to use more accurate wording. However, the information it contains should not be removed.PitOfBabel 15:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try not to get too emotional about this, but giving the impression that the jobs market for Ph.D.'s "is improving" is so out of touch with the reality in front of me, that I think it is misleading to put in it without qualification. Roadrunner 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want citable sources. There are about a dozen at http://www.phds.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 23:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

UK Funding

Students may also take part in tutoring, work as research assistants, or (occasionally) deliver lectures, at a rate of typically GBP10 per hour, either to supplement existing income or as a sole means of funding

Just how typical is this figure? The University of Birmingham pays nearer £13/hour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.73.10 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

The University of Liverpool officially pays £12 an hour but pays time and a half as standard due to preparation time and marking etc. Glennh70 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Imperial College London pays £15 an hour.

Proposal of merge

I have been reading Doctor (title) and Doctor of Philosophy and both pages are more or less the same. ¿Anybody else thinks that is worthy to merge them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juansempere (talk • contribs) 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't think this is a good idea. I also don't think the similarities are that great, but further differentiating the articles isn't necessarily a bad idea. JJL 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merge on the basis that it is inaccurate. One who holds a doctorate is referred to as "doctor." A Ph.D. is only one of many forms of doctorates. Perhaps it would be better to look at merging Doctor (title) with Doctorate. -Nick^talk 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PhDs spread to the UK in 1921?

This needs a source I would say, especially as other books give different years. Any suggestions? Glennh70 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide view

Someone has placed the worldwide view tag on this article. I thought we covered different parts of the world quite well, but I thought I'd take a look and see what we missed. Although we only talk about english speaking countries (and france) in the article, I found that many, many universities across the globe award "Ph.D. degrees." I visited the websites of universities in China, Japan, Iran, Egypt, Kenya, and South Africa, and found them all to state that they award "Ph.D." or "Doctor of Philosophy" degrees. I mentioned this in the intro, but more should probably be added. Because the specfics of Ph.D.s differ so much by country, this page might get unweildy if too many countries are discussed, so despite the need for a worldwide view, we should probably stick to engligh-language countries (as this is the english language wikipedia), or break each country's section into its own article, leaving this page as a short overview of Ph.D.s. -Nick^talk 23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a semantic problem that needs to be addressed: in most countries where English is not the official language, people who complete doctoral work in, say, geology or comparative literature, are not identified as "doctors of philosophy." Only philosophers are called doctors of philosophy. On the other hand, research doctorates worldwide are now patterned on Anglophone Ph.D.'s (i.e., they require at least three years of residence after having received a first degree, advanced coursework, and the composition and defense of a thesis containing original research) and are essentially equivalent to them in all but name. Therefore in English people often call them Ph.D.'s. I'm not against them being covered in the same article as Anglophone Ph.D.'s, but the situation should be explained clearly. Also, I personally would prefer calling the article "Research Doctorate," rather than "Doctor of Philosophy." This would definitely be a plus from the the "worldwide view" perspective. -- Eb.hoop 03:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Per your last point, most degrees have their own pages, so a Ph.D. specific page is a must; however, a separate research doctorate page would be nice (although there is a "research doctorate" section at doctorate). As for the worldwide view, if non-english-speaking countries typically do not award "Doctor of Philosophy" degrees, then this article does, in fact, cover the global scope of the Ph.D. Simply put, if Russian universities (for example) do not award the Ph.D. specifically, then it should not be covered in this article, as this article specifically covers "Doctor of Philosophy" degrees, and not "all degrees similar or equivalent to Ph.D.s." If, however, the Ph.D. is specifically a philosophy degree awarded in other countries, that is worthy of note. -Nick^talk 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm worried that the introduction to this article is getting a bit abstract. I'm all for global and historical perspective, but I am more concerned with understanding what readers of en.wikipedia.org are looking for when they search for "Ph.D." and giving it to them in a clear manner. As such, I have a few suggestions: First, a good chunk of the intro (most of the second paragraph) is historical context--why not move it into the history section? Most wikipedia articles focus on the current state of the subject, and constrain most if not all of the historical context to a separate section. It's not that I think the history is unimportant, but I think such a move would make the intro easier to read. Second, there is a "comparative" context (i.e. the worldwide perspective) to this article that I also think might be bogging things down. To resolve this, I suggest that the intro provide a concise definition of Ph.D. as it most commonly exists (advanced research degree awarded in multiple fields of study). Then, we move the comparative stuff to a new section that we create ("Ph.D.s across the globe," or something like that). All of the country-specific sections can then be relocated to subsections under this new heading. (I will move the sections on the article to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.)-Nick^talk 17:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I've tried to address some of your concerns about the intro. Both this article and the one on the Doctorate need serious work, which I don't feel up to. -- Eb.hoop 04:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that these articles need more work. Nonetheless, your edits on this page have helped quite a bit--the article reads much better now. -Nick^talk 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-Ph.D. job prospects section

A new section has been added to the article that, I think, is partially misleading. I removed it, but the section has been restored, so I will now spell out my objection, sentence by sentence:

• "The majority of universities appear to be reluctant to provide any statistics or other non-anecdotal evidence regarding how obtaining a PhD improves a PhD graduate's earning ability." This an unsupported assertion and there is no evidence to suggest it is true. Individual professional organizations maintain salary surveys that might demonstrate this--for example, the American Psychological Association has a salary survey showing that Ph.D. level psychologists earn more than Master's level psychologists.

• "This suggests that either such studies have not been conducted, or that they have been conducted and they show that there is little or no average improvement in income ." This is speculation based on an already dubious claim. The author clearly states a POV. In addition, the reference doesn't mention any of this.

• "Universities spend large amounts of money on marketing , and surely it would be quite advantageous to their marketing campaign if they could quote real monetary-value reasons to enrol in their programs." Perhaps, but that is beside the point. And, the reference given is simply some university's budget--all it shows is that one university spends some money on marketing.

• "This would allow prospective students to justify the time spent as being a worthwhile financial investment of their time and effort and reduction in income for the duration of the program, in addition to other reasons they may have for doing the program like a genuine interest in the subject matter." A Ph.D. won't help you get a promotion to middle-management. A Ph.D. is not an all-purpose "look, I have education!" degree, it is a research degree that leads to jobs in academia and other areas that are most often inaccessible to those without a doctorate. But I think the article already makes this clear.

• "It may be that in many fields, 3-4 years of job experience post-bachelor degree may improve ones income and job prospects more effectively." This is true in the business world. No offense, but you really don't need a ton of education to be a successful business person. The jobs that Ph.D. students typically seek are very different than what the average recent college grad wants.

Getting a Ph.D. is like getting a J.D. or M.D.--you don't do it because you want a promotion in a business job, you do it because you have a career in mind that requires the degree. I can't imagine that any reputable doctoral program would even accept someone who thought the Ph.D. was simply a money-making degree.

-Nick^talk 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I now have evidence that the paragraph mentioned above is inaccurate. Median salaries of Ph.D. holders are higher than those of Masters or Bachelors degree holders: Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4. In addition, salary scales at educational institutions show pay increases for those holding Ph.D. vs Master's degrees. And, as I mentioned above, the salaries for clinical psychologists with Ph.D.s PDF link is considerably higher than those with master's degrees PDF link.

Note that I am in favor of explaining to the readers that Ph.D.s are NOT useful in every field (mostly the business world), and that Ph.D. programs are designed to provide a very specific set of skills that are valued by a very specific type of career. As such, I am removing the offending paragraph. I would appreciate it if it wasn't blindly restored without major revisions.

That being said, I would be skeptical of the fact that any actual Ph.D. students are in it for earning power; rather, I would guess, this misconception comes from those who are undergraduates and are considering their options. I am a Ph.D. student in a research department in a research university, and the sorts of students we accept into the program are those who are in it for the intrinsic research value. My friends in other departments claim to have similar standards. Perhaps there are some institutions marketing their Ph.D. programs as earning-boosters, but those programs are hardly common. -Nick^talk 06:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the average salary for those holding a PhD is supposedly higher than for those without. I've often wondered whether this is a "real" correlation (i.e. PhD = higher salary) or a "false" one (i.e. those who are accepted/undertake a PhD tend to have excellent academic credentials anyway which would already suffice for them to obtain the kind of high calibre employment for which high salaries are a feature). As you correctly state, it's certainly the case that for most jobs a PhD is useless or worse than useless, and certainly does not exceed the kind of benefit derived from 4 or more years' of work experience. I should point out that (from what I recall) only about half of PhD graduates go on to work in academia (as post-docs; no idea how many may drop out after that) and whilst it is essential for academia, it can be burdensome elsewhere. In the final analysis, it is not an acceptable substitute for work experience, but for those who fancy being a student for another few years, have a deep interest in a particular topic, or are certain they want to be an academic, it might be worth thinking about. For everyone else, it won't help your career at all and will possibly hinder it- forget about the PhD, get a decent job and study for whatever you want at your leisure after you retire. Badgerpatrol 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, one would 1) Figure out what sort of career he/she desires, 2) Figure out what sort of education is beneficial to getting the most out of that career (in terms of advancement, job duties, and salary), and 3) Obtain that education. There are only a few careers for which a Ph.D. is useful. Aside from academia, several "think-tank" organizations (non-profit policy analysis, RAND, etc), government jobs (FBI, CIA, Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health), professional jobs (psychologists; research scientists; jury/trial consultants), secondary education administration (High School principals, School District Superintendent) will desire candidates with Ph.Ds. I want to be a professor, so I am in grad school finishing up my Ph.D.; however, several people in my department decided they didn't want to be in academia. I was surprised by the range of jobs these people ended up getting (mostly from the list above). As has been noted, none of those jobs are "normal" business jobs; rather they are specific positions that require the skills of someone trained in research (which means that those with Ph.D.s in the Natural and Social Sciences will be better off as they have more research and statistical training; a Ph.D. in the humanities won't get you much anywhere). Finally, it should be said that the jobs that desire/require Ph.Ds. will want the Ph.D. to come from a "real" university--distance learning and online Ph.Ds. don't provide the students with the necessary skills (they mostly impart knowledge of the subject matter, which is only of peripheral importance to most careers--even as a professor, I will be judged by the research I produce, not my overall knowledge of psychology.) -Nick^talk 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that most of those are actually academic jobs, albeit they may not always be in a university, but I do agree with your point. Fundamentally, in 99.9% of cases, having a PhD will not (in itself) help a candidate to secure a job or to secure success within said job and can sometimes actually be a burden. I'm not certain, but I don't think it's possible to do an online or true distance learning PhD here in the UK (although it is reasonably common for PhD students to register part time, especially if their project relates to their employment in some way, or if they are e.g. humanities students who only need a library to work), so I can't really comment on that aspect. Not sure what your point is re humanities PhDs- I think your view may be a little restricted due to your own background in psychology. The generic skills learned in a humanities PhD are 80-90% similar to the generic skills obtained by a scientist. From your list above, I would suggest that key criterion is not the actual skills and experience imparted by doing a PhD, but rather the perceived cachet that advanced academic training is thought to have, which could be useful when e.g. presenting political policy, dealing with schoolchildren and parents, consulting in trials, etc). Badgerpatrol 10:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(In response to comment on top of page) 'In the modern world, it indicates an individual who went back to school because they were unable to get a real job. Typical PhDs do not like this pointed out in public, and tend to edit out comments such as this one.'

Hmmmm, interesting point. I worked in retail management for 7 years during the day while studying for my PhD at night.

I'm guessing that retail management counts as a 'real world' job, although I'm not quite sure what you mean by the 'real world' (surely everyone's world is real enough to them? Who are you to judge?).

How do you divide jobs into 'real world' and not 'real world'? Is waiting tables 'real world'? What about cleaning, teaching, dictionary editing, translating, interpreting, modelling, playing music? These are all jobs I have done and was paid for while studying for my PhD. Which is 'real world' and which isn't? What is your criteria for judging and who are you to judge?

I've found the 'real world' criticism often comes from people who are very insecure about their own education and are stuck in some dead-end job. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.40 (talk • contribs)

US Admission

Article says: "Although specific requirements vary, programs at well-regarded research-oriented universities usually require significantly more of their applicants."

Looks like an incomplete sentence. Would someone care to complete it? Thanks. --Eamonnca1 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Doctorate

'While the Ph.D. is the most common doctoral degree in the United States, it is often misunderstood to be synonymous with the term "doctorate".'

The following sentence seems to imply that it is improper to call a PhD a "doctorate". The article to which this sentence links defines a PhD as a "research doctorate" and seems to be contradictory. Does anyone have any input?71.232.158.52 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I presume you meant the preceding sentence. I don't actually find it misleading- what it says is that the terms "PhD" and "doctorate" are not synonymous, which is manifestly true. Some men are Martians, but that doesn't mean that all Martians are men. Badgerpatrol 14:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All But Dissertation

In regards to "Students who have met all requirements except for the dissertation are frequently called ABDs, short for all but dissertation..." in the US section should be deleted. Students who have met all requirements except for having a dissertation are still called graduate students. If they leave before they finish, then they are called graduate school drop outs, plain and simple. ABD is a nonsensical term that shouldn't be used in this description. Demantos 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ABD is a very common term, and does not mean the person has dropped out. Many academic and non-academic jobs will hire people "ABD" with the expectation that they will finish their Ph.D. in a short period of time (or be fired if they don't). These people aren't usually enrolled in courses at their graduate institutions (so they really aren't active students), but they will still finish their degree (so they aren't dropouts either). -Nick^talk 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but a substantial number of people who complete part of a Ph.D. seem to append Ph.D. (ABD) to their names, as if it was a recognized degree. It's probably incorrect usage, but it should be mentioned. And if I remember correctly, in some European countries it's technically fraud to claim a doctorate you haven't earned. A friend of mine, who did his Ph.D. in the UK, was told by his committee that he had to rewrite his dissertation. Under the UK system, this doesn't officially count as a fail, but not a pass either: you have to resubmit and defend again. He thought he was still entitled to call himself "Dr." in the meantime, and ended up in deep trouble with the university... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjoshuav (talk • contribs)

With respect to your friend, he's lacking a bit in common sense. We could coin another acronym for major corrections followed by resubmit and a second viva "ABF= All but fail". I'm not surprised he ended up in trouble- under the UK system, that is about as close to failure as it is realistically possible to attain (an actual fail is technically possible, but almost unheard of). Badgerpatrol 00:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, the UK system allows the committee to give 5 possible results, of which the rewrite is no.3 (so it's not as close to an actual fail as possible). The 5 possibilities are: (1) Thesis accepted without changed (very rare, viewed as a particular honor) (2) Thesis accepted subject to minor changes (candidate gets a couple of months to make the changes) (3) Rewrite and resubmission (12-18 months allowed) (4) Committee can award an M.Phil. if it decides the thesis is worth one but will not (even after rewriting) be worth a Ph.D. (5) Fail. I know of three people who completely failed: one submitted against the advice of his supervisor, the other two I don't know the details of.

It is more nuanced than that in the sense that there are two aspects to rewrite and resubmission; a simple rewrite within 18 months, or rewrite with a second viva. I believe (and in my limited experience) it is particularly rare to be forced to take another viva. And without meaning to be pedantic...an MPhil is a "fail", in this context. If one submits for a qualification but don't get it because one's work is not of sufficient merit, then one has failed, sadly. So, in a very real sense, your friend came as close to failing as possible- by the same token I mean no disrespect to him or her; these things happen. The examination system for PhDs is a joke. I am intrigued though that you know of three outright failures; I've been in and around academia for over a decade, and I've known dozens of PhD students, but I've never heard of anyone outright failing. Again, I can only say that this convincingly demonstrates what a lottery the system actually is. Badgerpatrol 16:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Failures are indeed very rare, in the sense that most people who submit pass their viva. However, this tends to be because supervisors won't sign the thesis until it is good enough (although I assume, given the above comments, that a mechanism exists for submitting without the supervisor's consent). So "failed" Ph.D. candidates usually simply don't finish before the time limit at their institution.

Indeed. By far the vast majority of candidates who fail to get a PhD do so by not submitting a thesis. In fact, given that the supervisor is not supposed to let the student submit their thesis until it's of the required standard, it's generally regarded as quite serious if the student fails (or is downgraded to MPhil or MSc/MA) at the viva. Typically, the university requires the examiners to submit a report stating why they considered the thesis not to be of the required standard, and explaining why the "rewrite/resubmit within 12 months" option wasn't a viable one (effectively they're saying "it's not worth a PhD and we can't see how, even with a further year's work, a PhD-worthy thesis can be constructed from it"). Also, the supervisor has to explain why they let things get this far off the rails without doing something about it -- Nicholas Jackson 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take issue with Badgerpatrol's assertion that "major corrections and resubmit" is "as close to failure as it is realistically possible to attain", because it happened to me and the examiners made it very clear at the time that this was not what they were saying. The regulations at my university (and I'm assuming this is typical in the UK) state that "minor corrections" may require substantive changes to at most six separate pages (plus an unlimited number of typographical corrections). Any corrections which will (or might) require substantive changes to seven or more separate pages are classed as "major corrections". In extreme cases (which mine wasn't) the examiners might require a second viva.

In my case, there was a flaw in the proof of one theorem (it was a very subtle point of category theory that I don't feel particularly ashamed about) which could potentially have required the rewriting of that entire section. In the event, the original theorem was correct, and the necessary changes (essentially just rewriting that proof so it worked, and inserting a short lemma to justify the dubious step) would have come in under the "minor corrections" wire anyway. As it was, I took the opportunity to tidy up a couple of other bits that I wasn't quite happy with (quality of exposition sometimes has a tendency to suffer in the face of an approaching submission deadline) and removed a short section that I didn't feel added anything.

Unlike Cjoshuav's friend, however, I was extremely scrupulous about not calling myself (and not allowing anyone else to call me) "Dr" until after I'd shaken the Vice-Chancellor's hand on graduation day (even though by that point Senate had formally approved the award of my degree a couple of months earlier). -- Nicholas Jackson 09:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it traditional to take the title "Dr" if your thesis is accepted unchanged or with minor changes? My examiners addressed me as "Dr" when they told me the result, and the university started to call me "Dr" even though it was another year until there was a graduation ceremony.

This is quite common practice, although strictly speaking incorrect. The reason being that the examiners don't formally award the degree (and accompanying title and privileges) themselves, they merely recommend that the University does so. In practice, what the examiners say goes, and (in the absence of any serious unresolved procedural issues) the Senate just rubber-stamps their recommendation without comment. Having said that, in another sense, the viva is about duly-appointed representatives of the academic community deciding whether or not you're one of them, and in many cases the examiners will informally call the successful candidate "Dr" as a way of saying "well done, welcome to the club" - the importance of which shouldn't be overlooked. If you've passed (subject to at most minor corrections) then you've done the difficult bit - everything else is just paperwork, and nobody sensible would quibble at that point. I just didn't call myself "Dr" because I didn't want to jinx anything (like Niels Bohr's neighbour, I'm not superstitious, but I'm told it works even if you don't believe in it). -- Nicholas Jackson 15:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I mean no disrespect to anyone. The point is, because the system effectively revolves around the whim of two examiners, who may more or less be selected by the candidate or the supervisor, the whole system becomes a lottery. One man's major corrections may well be another man's no corrections at all. Regulations change up and down the land- I've never come across this "6 page limit" before, my understanding of minor corrections was "those that can be reasonably completed in three months" vs for major corrections "those that can reasonably be completed in 18 months" (again a bit of a joke- 18 months is not far off long enough to redo the whole thing from scratch, at an extreme push). As you were unfortunate enough to discover, making six pages some kind of threshold effectively means that if a candidate has stuffed up say one ten page chapter out of 11 chapters over 300 pages, then they get major corrections, even if the other 90% is of an excellent quality. The whole viva system is a total lottery. We should move towards a European system where 3+ published papers are required before the viva, and establish some fair criteria for selecting examiners- such as submitting a selection of suggestions from which two are selected at random by the university, rather than the candidate/supervisor actively selecting. Currently, luck is basically a major determinant of whether or not someone gets a PhD, devaluing the whole process. However, this is slightly off topic for this talk page. Badgerpatrol 10:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree that this is off-topic, but still interesting. I've never seen a hard limit of n pages of corrections; it's usually left to the judgement of the examiners. And while the result is in some sense the "whim" of the examiners, there are (at least at the universities whose regulations I've seen) various safety procedures: an appeals system, a committee that reads the examiners' reports to confirm the the result. Besides, I think examiners are recommended by the supervisor and the head of department, with the student only being able to register objections, rather than actually taking an active part in selection. Then it's up to a university committee to approve the examiners.

If your supervisor picks examiners that he thinks are likely to fail you, then a) clearly there is, to say the least, something of a falling out between student and mentor, and b) he's a bit of an idiot, since the blame for students' failures does tend to be reflected onto the supervisor. In theory, the university has the option to approve or disapprove- in effect this is a rubber stamp and nothing more. I suppose they might object if the examiner was the candidate's mum or something (in fact I think the main reason for the examiners to be approved is to confirm whether it's necessary to pay for foreigners to come over or if they can get someone cheaper over here rather than to guard against bias). There are two things about the appeal system; a) nobody appeals a positive result for obvious reasons, so false positives (students passing when they shouldn't) are obviously common; b) unless there is a procedural problem or a candidate is failed despite having three papers in Nature or a bestselling book or something, what's to appeal? It's a matter of individual opinion. I've never known anyone to appeal an unfavourable viva result. I would accept that any bias is probably not symmetric; most (but not all) those who fail/get major corrections possibly deserve to, but I would also say that many who pass, do not. The system is markedly skewed towards increasing the probability of success. The reality is, if you get as far as handing in your thesis, then you have got a very, very good chance indeed of overall success. A PhD is much more a test of staying power than it is one of intellectual achievement. Badgerpatrol 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The six-page limit is almost certainly a local variation, and I'm just going by what my internal examiner told me after the viva, although I'd expect that most universities have some sort of formalised definition of the boundaries between "minor corrections", "major corrections/resubmit", "MPhil" and "fail outright". It'd presumably be necessary to have at least some written definitions of the various categories in case anyone appealed against the examiners' decision.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you that the entire system is rotten to the core, although I do acknowledge that there are inconsistencies and potential for abuse. It's not like a normal exam, remember - the idea is that by the time you walk into the viva, you're the world expert on what your thesis is about, so it's not necessarily clear how one should select suitably-qualified examiners (this is even trickier with higher doctorates, when there might be nobody qualified to judge the work in question other than the candidate themselves). I will, though, agree that a little more transparency probably wouldn't hurt. -- Nicholas Jackson 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

At most U.S. Universities, a Ph.D. student is admitted to candidacy after successfully completing coursework and comprehensive/qualifying exams. At that point, they cease to be a "Ph.D. Student" and are a "Ph.D. Candidate." They can also apply for tenure-track positions at many schools. Far from being "nonsensical," "ABD" is a useful term for identifying a person's current level of academic achievement. Whether or not you like that designation, it is sufficiently widely used that it deserves notation in this encyclopedia. Cjoshuav 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - ABD is certainly a meaningful term in wide use in US universities. It's not in use in the UK because (since there are typically no formal coursework or examination requirements) all UK PhD students are "all but dissertation" from day one. -- Nicholas Jackson 09:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thesis vs Dissertation

I would argue against some of the terms being used in the discussion and the article.

Dissertations and Theses should not be used together, as they mean completely different things. The correct usage is that dissertations are for Masters degrees, and theses for Doctorate.

Dissertation

When studying for a Masters, you submit a Dissertation. The literal meaning of which is a discussion about published material based on a theme or subject of study. These are usally about 10,000 pages long.

When studying for my Masters, I had to pick a subject, and write a dissertation, where any conclusions had to be backed up with published materials and references.

Thesis

When studying for a doctorate you submit a thesis. This is an academic publication on a area of original research.

The student will have submitted a theory to the board for consideration.

If accepted they then reseach thier theorm. The written thesis is then a documentation of the theory, what the expected results are, what experiments were performed and under what conditions, the results, the evaluation of the results, references and other works to justify the conclusions to the results, and finally the conclusion.

Theses are usally of book length (over 100,000 words) and if of exceptional quality are usually published.

The last part is then justifying to the board the conclusion of the thesis. The board do not have to agree with your conclusions, only in the scientific approach to the thesis.

Mat macwilliam 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know where you are from, so perhaps this is true in your country. However, in the US, theses are typically associated with master's degrees, and dissertations are associated with doctorates. I'd suggest leaving both terms in the intro. -Nick^talk 19:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. JJL 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that, strictly speaking, the thesis is the main point or argument being postulated or discussed, and the dissertation is the physical, bound sheaf of paper in which this discussion is written up - but in practice the former term has also come to be widely used with the latter meaning too. Given that usage varies throughout the world, and since wikipedia is supposed to be an international encyclopaedia, I think both terms should be mentioned. -- Nicholas Jackson 23:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that the dictionary defines dissertations as pertaining to doctoral degrees. -Nick^talk 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have noted that I am English, and speaking the language as a native speaker. The only dictionary definitions I would accept are English dictionaries. It is a well known fact Americans cannot speak, spell, or write English in a coherant and senesible manner. I will look up dissertation and thesis in the Oxford English Dictionary. Mat macwilliam 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also well known that the English cannot speak, spell, or write English in a coherent manner!! As an American who has lived in England, I can tell you that the English that is spoken and writtin in The United States is vastly different than "the Queen's English." It wouldn't be inaccurate to describe American and British English as different languages.

The American and British educational systems or different. The terms thesis and dissertations may not be universal. 76.105.150.19 09:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I can vouch for the fact that the English language as writtin [sic] by those in The United States [sic] is significantly different to that spoken and written in the United Kingdom. Badgerpatrol 12:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally the terms are defined at real universities (lookup Wikipedia entries on Ancient and Red-Brick for my definition of real), as dissertation for Masters and thesis for Doctoral. I do not not care what American or Plate-Glass or ex-Polytechnic universities call them, as a degree from these is not worth the paper it is written on. Mat macwilliam 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is at this point that I should also point out that I cannot spell. Mat macwilliam 18:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant OED entry for thesis: 5. A dissertation to maintain and prove a thesis (in sense 4); esp. one written or delivered by a candidate for a University degree. Here is the relevant OED entry for dissertation: [2.] b. spec. An extended scholarly essay, usu. based upon original research, submitted for a degree or other academic qualification. The OED does not differentiate the terms by masters and doctoral level degrees. And Mat, keep your POV rhetoric to a minimum. -Nick^talk 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is at times like this I like to quote George Bernard Shaw 'England and America are two countries separated by a common language'. Koos 12:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone who claims to be a "native speaker of English" should know how to spell "coherent" , don't you think ? 161.24.19.82 19:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A senesible point! (A point that is growing old?) Australian usage is thesis for both Masters and PhD - are there any takers for dissertation all around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaded-view (talk • contribs) 04:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

T vs D; International standard

Out of curiosity, I looked at the websites for various schools: University of New South Wales (Australia), University College Dublin (Ireland), McGill (Canada), and Oxford (England). All of these schools referenced "doctoral dissertations" and used the term "dissertation" to refer to a Ph.D. level thesis. Thus, I don't think this is just a US thing, unless someone (e.g., the original poster) can provide a cite proving the contrary. I edited the article to use the term "dissertation," as that seems to be the international english-language standard. It is merely a matter of semantics, as there is no real difference between a thesis and dissertation, but we should use the most common terms. -Nick^talk 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but PhD dissertation is not a widely used descriptor in the UK imho, where I've only ever heard a submission for a doctorate referred to as a thesis. It is more common to use "dissertation" for undergraduate honours reports and sometimes Master's level degrees. I'm surprised that the term is standard on (for example) UCD and Oxford's websites, but I take your word for it (although I note that in Oxford's official examination regulations[1], the word "thesis" is used throughout, and it seems to actively differentiate between a Dphil "thesis" and a master's "dissertation" at one point). "PhD thesis" (the exact form of the query as written) = 2.74 million total hits, with 0.967 million from the UK only; "PhD dissertation" = 1.03 million total, with 0.108 million from the UK only. This may be down to local differences or perhaps just personal experience, who knows. However, as you correctly state, the terms are interchangeable and mean virtually exactly the same thing whichever way we look at it, so it isn't an issue anyway. Badgerpatrol 04:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that, in the US, the final document submitted for examination by a PhD candidate is officially called a dissertation in most, if not all universities, although students and professors may also refer to it informally as a thesis. In the UK on the other hand, with a few exceptions (most notably Oxford), the term "thesis" is used both formally and informally to refer to doctoral work. 200.177.21.122 11:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics, the PhD and ASSESSMENT

Apologies to any social scientists or those from the humanities – you will dislike reading what I have to post here (it refers to apolitical decision making processes). However, I have always felt that the ideals of mathematics usually go beyond those of other subjects – requiring something in the way of the scientific (and perhaps even psychometric) testing of young mathematicians in order to ensure that they have at least a basic command of universially taught mathematical material. It seems only good and fair to me (and anyone else with common sense) that, if PhD is to be assigned, there should be at least some test-taking/pen-and-paper testing format to make sure that students are purely chosen based upon merit.

I would have certainly thought that there would be some concreted examination component to the UK/US mathematics degree – standardised testing along the lines of GCSEs and A-levels, except at a much higher level. The last thing anyone would want to see is a Mathematics PhD student who can't tell you Gauss' or Green's theorem straight off the top of their head....

Of course, the same goes for SET degrees too.

ConcernedScientist 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I have made the assumption that all students would be given an equal and fair chance to prepare for the examinations/assessments that I have mentioned above – but this goes without saying.

ConcernedScientist 11:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, but in the US at least, PhD candidates are required to pass a minimum number of graduate-level classes (usually with a grade 'B' or higher) and must also pass a series of preliminary qualifying exams where their knowledge of "universally taught mathematical material" is throughly tested. It is very unlikely that a person might graduate from a top US university with a PhD degree in pure math without knowing the fundamentals of graduate-level algebra, geometry, and analysis. In Europe on the other hand, PhD students do not normally take classes and work instead full-time on their theses (and possibly associated research papers). In order to reach that level however, extensive prior formal training in the fundamentals of mathematics is required. For example, at Cambridge, all incoming PhD students in pure or applied math are required to have a qualification comparable to the university's own Certificate of Advanced Studies in Mathematics, which would be considered a very rigorous graduate-level education by American standards. In France on the other hand, one must first obtain a D.E.A. (("diplôme d'études approfondies") or, in the new Bologna system, a "master recherche" prior to beginning thesis work. Generally speaking, the level of a French math student who holds an "ingénieur" degree from , for example, "L'École Polytechnique", and subsequently obtains a D.E.A or "master recherche" is comparable to or higher than that of a US PhD student who has just passed his/her qualifying exam. Overall, I believe that in most major countries (the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc.), Math PhDs/doctors are well grounded in the fundamentals. Quality may vary though in Third World countries. Toeplitz 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Germany section confusing tag

I added a confusing tag to the Germany section since, after reading it, I am confused. Specifically, I'd like some clarification about the sentence "This is a considerable difference..." that compares Germany to other countries. In most countries, Ph.D. students take courses early on, but then essentially work as researchers for several years under the direct guidance of one or more professors. So I don't see what the actual difference is, or why Ph.D. student is not an appropriate term. -Nick^talk 02:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick: The thing in Germany is that "PhD students" are usually fully employed and paid for by the university (that is, you do not have to pay to be allowed to conduct your PhD studies at the university, but you get money for doing it). To be more specific, they are employed by one single professor who automatically becomes the thesis advisor (I guess that this is in fact the main difference between the German and for example the US academic system). Also, from the beginning of their doctorate, they spend a considerable amount of time as assistant lecturers, doing administrative work for the chair, and so on - and this is what they are actually being paid for. I think the point that the original author was trying to make is that you are not a "student" but more a "university employee". Also, "PhD students" in Germany are not really free in conducting research but are assigned or voluntarily choose topics that match with those the professor they are employed by is researching. What this comes down to is, when you think about getting your PhD, you usually do not pick a university or a graduate program, but you pick an individual professor that you want to work with/for who stands for a subject or field of research that you are (hopefully) particularly interested in.
By the way, Ph.D. courses in which Ph.D. students of more than one professor come together are still rather uncommon in Germany, although some universities/schools have started to initiate Ph.D. programs as conducted in the US (doesnt change the employment situation described above though). Moreover, I am pretty sure that the systems are similar in Austria and Switzerland, but I am not sure about the rest of the world. 138.246.7.132 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I also find this confusing. The situation you describe above is virtually exactly the same (for the most part) as that in much of the rest of the world; the only immediately obvious difference may be the amount of admin work done and the degree of renumeration for it. Generally, PhD students are paid for the research, with the teaching on top as a small bonus, in Germany perhaps they are paid for the teaching with the research on top. I also believe that there are coursework requirements in the US and Canada, but these are not to my knowledge commonly found in Europe, including Germany. Badgerpatrol 07:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A Dutch ex-colleague did his doctorate at the University of Utrecht and said the system is the same in the Netherlands. Whereas in the UK and many other countries, candidates for a PhD are postgraduate students usually receiving a maintenance grant, in the Netherlands (and, it seems, Germany) they're paid research assistants with a contract of employment and regular salary, and the award of the PhD is conditional upon successful completion of the project they're employed to work on. My former colleague said he had some interesting salary discussions with the HR department of the (UK-based) company he subsequently went to work with - he maintained that his PhD studies counted as five years relevant work experience (which in the Netherlands they would have done) whereas the HR department's position was that those five years didn't count because he was (they insisted) a student at the time. In the end, I think, they came to some sort of compromise. It's a subtle difference, and one that is not easy to explain, but I'm convinced it's there -- Nicholas Jackson 09:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have heard that it is the case that they are basically considered very junior members of staff over there rather than students per se, as in the UK. But I suspect it's more a difference in terminology (and perhaps cultural perception) rather than genuine effect- my understanding is that the life of a PhD student/candidate/whatever in Germany is very, very similar in essence to what it is elsewhere (certainly elsewhere in Europe). In fact, exactly the same system (students as research assistants, who essentially do a PhD on the side as well as running labs, doing admin etc) is found in the UK, but it isn't widespread. The difference between a maintenance grant and a salary is a subtle one (and stipends for PhD students are rarely if ever called maintenance grants any more)...in fact the only substantive difference is probably that one has to pay tax on a salary. Badgerpatrol 10:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've read the above replies, I too am thinking that the differences are simply due to perspective or terminology. In the US, Ph.D. students may apply to a "program," but it is usually an individual professor that decides whether to admit the student, and that professor becomes the student's mentor throughout graduate school. Students who are applying to graduate programs usually specify with whom they would like to work. And, like in other countries, Ph.D. students do not pay tuition, and they receive an annual salary/stipend in exchange for their assistance in research or teaching. Finally, because graduate students have teaching and research responsibilities, they are often treated more similarly to junior faculty than they are to undergraduate students. There are, of course, exceptions to this in the US, particularly in "for-profit" schools, which are not on the same level as traditional universities (for profit schools are more focused on career development than academic training, and someone with a Ph.D. from such a school would almost certainly not be able to obtain a faculty or research position at a traditional university). -Nick^talk 17:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am from germany, and I am working at a german chair in an international environment (i.e., at an institute with many non-german researchers). I can see the difference each day:

German PhD canditates are usually a lot more independent and responsible for themselves. The do not take courses on their subjects, because the subject of their dissertation is usually too specific and advanced, and the basic courses are already part of the Diplom programme. They also already did at least one thesis to earn the Diplom degree, and this thesis also includes scientific research to a certain level. Plus, PhD candidates are often expected to write papers about their research for international journals and conferences (and present their papers there) (at least in the natural and engineering sciences).

Besides that german PhD candidates are first employees at a german university. They do research and they are accountable for their projects themselves. And only in the second place they write a PhD thesis, supervised by the professor who holds the chair. In terms of their general work and their salary there is no difference between PhD candidates and other researching employees without a PhD at that university. These are the reasons why PhD candidates in germany are considered researchers and not students.

As said before, I can see the difference each day at work. "Our" (i.e., german) PhD candidates are much more independent and self-reliant than the PhD students from other countries at this institute. The latter often still have to learn how to research indepentently.

Uhm, my contribution to this discussion comes a bit late. Does it still help? — Tauriel-1 (☎) 22:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

New opinions are always welcomed. From what you've said, I think there is still a terminology and structure difference that is an issue. For example, in the US, a Ph.D. education is often broken into three segments: The Bachelors Degree (undergraduate) portion, the Masters Degree (graduate coursework) portion, and the Doctoral portion (independent research). From what I read in the article you mentioned about the Diplom, it seems like the Diplom work covers everything that is part of a Bachelors and Masters degree in the US. Because a Masters degree is not required to be in a "Ph.D. Program" in the US, Ph.D. students must first take coursework and pass an exam before officially becoming "Ph.D. Candidates." From that point on, the Ph.D. student is to be conducting independent research and publishing articles often as an employee of the university.

One thing that makes the US confusing is that there are a wide variety of Ph.D. programs that vary in their quality. Some universities are not all that good, and the Ph.D. program may involve very little independent research, and graduates of those programs may have difficulty finding jobs. (Even within universities, some Ph.D. programs are much better than others.) It seems that in other parts of the world, there are fewer programs, and very few "bad" programs. But in the US at a "good" program within a "good" university, the Ph.D. student will be an independent researcher who is to be publishing research in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, and has teaching and service responsibilities (and is often employed by the university). And, even though most US universities only require one major independent research project for the Ph.D. thesis, it would be nearly impossible to obtain a job with only one project. In my discipline, the students who are successful in finding academic jobs typically have 2-3 first-author publications, several more publications as a co-author, and still more articles that are in the process of being peer-reviewed. -Nick^talk 02:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I forgot to think about the variety. I knew that this variety exists for different bachelor and master programs at different colleges and universities but I "forgot" it when talking about PhD programs. In germany all the universities have (or at least, had) quite similar programs for each study portion (Diplom and Doctorate). But they head towards an american system with some excellent universities (that is the reason why "they" do it) and lots of less good universities (...Politics...), and a Bachelor and Master system. Still, a Diplom, Magister or Master will be required to become a Ph.D. candidate, so taking courses is usually not necessary for Ph.D. candidates.

On the other hand, the programs in germany differ depending on the supervising professor because we usually don't have fix programs. Instead professor says what the doctorate candidate has to do (e.g., if/how many papers for what kind of conferences/journals have to be written). Maybe the german PhD doesn't differ so much from good U.S. university Ph.D. programs for Ph.D. students who already have a Masters degree, but a lot from the worse ones, and I have only seen graduates from not so good universities. ;-) — Tauriel-1 (☎) 13:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

List of references too meagre

I find it odd that there are only three book references listed at the end of this article, when there is now a large literature on this topic. I may add more to the list. It might also be worth pointing out how there are courses available to tutors who wish to do Ph.D. supervision, such as the Postgraduate Certificate in Research Degree Supervision with which I am currently enrolled at the university where I teach; or at least, to indicate that there is now a large literature to help Ph.D. supervisors. ACEOREVIVED 19:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bogus PhDs

I read an interesting article nearly two years ago in a Church of Ireland magazine by Rev Patrick Comerford. The gist of this was that there are a lot of bogus PhDs around, normally offered by equally bogus "universities" but sometimes by rather outré churches in the USA, which appear to find it slightly easier to get round banning legislation than do "colleges". In sme cases the "doctorates" do not demand any great academic achievement; in other cases, you simply pay a few dollars and get an impressive certificate. Unfortunately it would be wrong to describe these as useless (though they might be worthless) because they can be used to hoodwink employers and others. I do not know enough about this to put a paragraph into the main article, but it might be useful. Millbanks 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I do think we should note in the articles that not all PhDs are equal, and that people should watch out for "diploma mills" and non-accredited "universities." I've never heard of a church offering an academic degree. Did this article give any examples? I'm interested to look into them. -Nick^talk 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. I'll try and put in a few words on the bogus topic.Yes, churches do offer PhDs, some quite reputable. But I don't know much about this, so I'll have to do a bit of research. Give me time on both points, please! By the way, there are also honorary doctorates, in the way there are also honorary degrees. Millbanks 09:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctorates

My initial enquiriies about the above have shown me what a complex subject it is.

First, the PhD is one of many doctorates. There are Doctors of Science, Theology, Letters, Divinity, Medicine etc.

Second, many people call themselves "doctor" without having a doctorate. The obvious example are medical practitioners in the UK and Ireland. (But in Germany, for example, a medical practitioner would not be called Doktor unless s/he had a doctorate).

Third there are honorary doctorates. For example I think that Ian Paisley has one from Bob Jones University in South Carolina. The former Governor General of Australia, and Archbishop of Brisbane, Peter Hollingworth, has six honorary doctorates, plus a DLitt, a Lambeth degree awarded him by the Archbishop of Canterbury, DR Carey. (This is apparently not an honorary doctorate, but an award).

Fourth, there are of course bogus and substandard ones, as there are degrees, MBAs, etc.Millbanks 07:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)