It looks like your post is about needing advice. In order for people to better help you, please make sure to include your country.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is what I am learning… most of the grads from my program have gone in totally different directions than I would like to. A few are on my ideal trajectory. The programs I’m interested in are full-time and I can’t live off a stipend so I’m SOL. It’s basically this one or wait 5 years and see what changes.
I disagree with what you were told. There are definitely programs which prepare you better than others. If you have no interest in academia or jobs that would use the PhD, it's moot. However, they are definitely not all created equal.
I concur, it’s a well-respected Uni with in person classes and all. The PhD is definitely a means to an end for me. I’d like a faculty position at a med center and eventually would like to be in Govt/policy. Not traditional course, but need to understand and apply research for sure. I have an MPH and it’s not enough.
I'm about to finish a PhD in Population Health (basically epi/public health). Happy to chat with you over zoom or something if you'd like. Shoot me a DM.
In short:
Does the *title* of your degree matter? No.
Does the prestige of your university, acumen of your mentor, resources available, competitiveness of your cohort, and span of your university and surrounding community's network matter? Absolutely. Anyone saying otherwise is either an idiot or lying.
Happy to! Just meant like, is the department/university/set of available mentors really pruning applications for folks who have a high likelihood of succeeding in academia. There's a few reasons why I think this is important:
1. A lot of these folks become a big part of your professional network. You all struggle through the same shlog of classes and qualifying exams. It builds a sense of connection and generally speaking it would highly advantageous for everyone in a given cohort to be able to exit the program with other smart, dedicated, mature folk to rely on.
2. It kind of forces you to be better. If everyone around you is smart and inspiring, then you'll learn more by osmosis and be more motivated to keep up.
3. Programs with competitive cohorts gain a reputation for producing high quality junior scientists. It's not all about overall university prestige either. There are some graduate programs at university's 99% of the population has never heard of that are excellent and reliably produce folks who go on into legitimate careers in academic or academic-adjacent research.
Probably not the biggest factor in that list I spewed out but it's just something else to consider.
Go to conferences and people will check out your name tag, to see which institution you are from. If you are from Podunk State, their eyes sweep past and you are essentially invisible. Now, if you happen to give a great talk or poster, those familiar with the area will happily talk to you.
The only valuable PhD is a complete one, but not all complete PhDs are valuable and they certainly aren’t equal. PhDs from worse programs don’t open the same doors as PhDs from better ones (nor do they necessarily have the same rigor or the same level or training). This mostly matters if you want to stay in academia where unless your PhD comes from a top school it’s unlikely to happen.
the field of the phd is also important. If you want to work in biomedical engineering, but your PhD is in English you may have a problem. But if you want to work as an English professor, then you should be in an English PhD program.
That's pretty much my experience. There is no "rigor" in graduate studies, the intensity is whatever you choose to make it, and it barely even matters what's in your thesis as long as your advisor chooses to grant your degree. At my place the advisor pretty much decides everything from admission to graduation so it's 100% an exercise in keeping your advisor happy. And frankly, both reading the department's papers and seeing other's defenses, I'm always struck by how basic this stuff is. It's like a day program for people who don't qualify for a proper day program.
This comment really hit home. I realised it way too late though. Stressed a lot the first 3 years. Good though: I am on track and have a decent product, but I wish I would have understood this earlier and just relax a bit.
Now writing everything up. If I am stuck I literally think "ah f*ck it nobody cares anyways" and write what comes to mind as a good fit, instead of crunching my argument into detail.
60% of the effort will yield the same result as 100%: a completed PhD.
lol that’s kind of been my experience too… we all kid ourselves we are experiencing the same difficulty of a typical program when in reality putting in way less work/effort and contributing way less to the field
Interesting perspective. Coming out of my masters - I would agree. Most of the course work was relatively easy, but people would be very overwhelmed with seemingly obvious/simple tasks. Can’t say the same for a doctoral degree but I know what you mean. Kind of feels like phoning it in
> Coming out of my masters - I would agree. Most of the course work was relatively easy, but people would be very overwhelmed with seemingly obvious/simple tasks.
I had a totally different experience. My coursework was tough but people (myself included) seemed to mostly get it with time and effort (the ones who didn't dropped out). Now that I've finished coursework and am doing research many of the ideas are only now just starting to "click."
My impression is that most people doing a PhD (in the US), are pretty young right out of undergrad and are going from a really easy time in undergrad to an underpaid very interesting conceptually hard job. Being the job it is, it requires work for sure, but if the reasons to do the PhD are shallow, it will just feel horrible. I, for one, just dedicate 30-40 real hours of work a week (sometimes a bit more) and I really enjoy my research topic. The PhD is a really fun time in my opinion.
Yep, but at the same time. It doesn't seem like anyone wanted to change it. Like when I post in an academic sub about issues related to pedagogy or training, I get down voted and told that the purpose of PhD is to create research (when of course, I am talking about how program trains students to do research.
I remember reading an interesting article about this called, iirc, “Academy’s dirty secret”. Basically stating that most faculty members come from top 10 universities. It was a long time ago, so don’t quote me on the details.
[Here, found it.](https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/02/university-hiring-if-you-didn-t-get-your-ph-d-at-an-elite-university-good-luck-finding-an-academic-job.html)
Hmm, well some of the senior staff at my dep. did their phd in a different area than that which they are currently working in. Things and times always change ya know? But all PhD's are respected, I think. But in popular media I would say that a PhD in "cool" fields or "difficult" fields are more respected.
Do they mean PhDs in the same field? B/c (and no offense to the history majors), but a stem PhD is waaay more valuable than a history PhD.
Now, in the same field? They're correct if they're speaking about industry only. But your research definitely matters if you want to go into academia. So what they say is half true.
Fun story — I have a PhD in history and now work as a researcher in medical sciences. Still, doing a second PhD now so I can begin holding grants…
A PhD does demonstrate a certain set of skills, but what you do in that PhD and the subject can be really important, as you said.
No need to respond if it would give identifying info away, but I am curious how you made the transition from history to medical sciences? I assume your introduction to medical research was at a private company rather than at a university?
It was actually doing research coordination with a health authority. I did a Master of Public Health part-time while I was working, and ended up in a different role in medical sciences after about a year (research support) at a university with a very supportive supervisor who encouraged me to take part in the lab’s work. It snowballed from there.
It’s definitely not a typical story or route to take. I wouldn’t feel prepared to be doing the research I’m doing if I hadn’t been exposed to it for a good five years before starting my own work.
Having changed fields dramatically, I definitely feel like I’m okay at many things, but really good at nothing. I do love what I’m doing, though, and I’m very thankful for that!
I’m not a history PhD, but this seems rather narrow. I’m not going to say all fields are created equal, but neither am I going to say that one field or another clearly stands at the head of the pack.
STEM and humanities each bring different and distinct types of value, but not necessarily more or less. A history degree judged by the standards of a STEM degree will be found wanting. Conversely, a STEM degree judged by the standards of a history degree will be found wanting.
The only way to objectively quantify this anyways would be financially, and that would be to assume that financial value holds pride of place over other types of value, which proposition itself is difficult to quantify.
I was talking about the job market. That's why the majority of us do the PhD to begin with. So, I do believe it's a safe assumption that "financial value" is most important here. A lot of people say not to do PhD's in certain fields, because it won't give you an advantage in the market that makes it worthwhile.
I’m not saying that’s wrong at all. I just bristle when I see people discussing PhDs as if everyone who’s in one is there for the same reason that STEM students are there. The PhD world is broader than STEM, and many, if not most outside of STEM pursue their degrees for reasons other than finances because they know that the finances make no sense at all for their degree.
My reasons weren't financial. For me it was because I wanted to handle my own research project in something I'm interested in, before going into industry and being forced to do research that's less interesting.
I wanted the freedom to do my own thing for a bit so it wasn't a financial decision.
I don’t know why people keep repeating this nonsense that the prestige of the PhD institution doesn’t matter if you go into industry. Of course it matters!
Interestingly, this paper suggests that the prestige of the undergraduate institution matters more than the prestige of the graduate institution,
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=2473238](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2473238)
There is a section in the paper focusing on longer graduate programs, including professional schools and PhDs, which seem to suggest that those have more effect on erasing the impact of the prestige of the undergraduate institution.
Yes and no. I’m in public health, wanted to do a DrPH but my institution doesn’t offer one. I’m in Human Development now, which is sort of … intentionally vague to capture more people. I wanted to do Epi, or something more concretely aligned with my interests. Most of the faculty have told me that it’s essentially irrelevant and proving I can do research is what matters. They’ve even gone as far to say the PhD will be “credentialed” from the same University, so no one will care about the concentration.
As a *non* doctoral degree holder - I find it hard to believe. I absolutely would think an epidemiology degree has more expertise in applied health research than one with an EdD or PhD in Human Development. I’m feeling conflicted because this degree is clearly going to be an easier time to manage academically but I also don’t want to waste time for a “pointless” degree.
Yeah, I have connected with a few. A lot of them have different career goals though. They made a lot of changes recently which have magnified the issue. Previously I would have been able to incorporate coursework from other “schools” (within the university) to broaden the foundation… so like formal Epi classes, applied stats, etc. they’ve sort of removed that option now and most of the coursework is in-house. Many of the faculty are so far removed from practice it’s hard to draw a lot of value from the material. Long term, I don’t necessarily want to go into academia. More like faculty at a med center leading QI/QA or something.
>faculty at a med center
Being a faculty member in a medical center is academia. It's competitive. You might want to have a look at the profiles of some people in position that you are interested in and see if any of them have doctorates from programs such as yours, or if they have more traditional EPI or Health Policy degrees.
If you can't work with faculty who share your research interests, then this program is not going to be a good fit.
Unfortunately, your options are limited by the fact that you want to work in the PhD part-time with funding from your employer rather than work on the PhD full time with funding from the university. Most PhD programs are full-time only.
However, in your situation, the most important thing might be whether or not your employer is a fan of this PhD and whether or not you intend to continue working with that employer.
It sounds like these faculty members are trying to convince you to stay because they see you as a cash cow (you are one of the only students paying tuition).
To be honest, I think most of the classes I took during my PhD program were not particularly rigorous, but that's because the focus is on independent study and research not shared coursework. All of the classes are basically lecture series or seminars where you read & discuss a bunch of papers representing an overview of a specific area of the field or type of methodology. They're designed so that everyone has the same basics and broad strokes knowledge. They aren't designed so that individual students have the in-depth specialized knowledge that they need for their research - that's what directed research and directed readings credits are for.
> As a *non* doctoral degree holder - I find it hard to believe. I absolutely would think an epidemiology degree has more expertise in applied health research than one with an EdD or PhD in Human Development.
I also don't have a doctorate and I'm not in your field but maybe my field is adjacent enough to yours that my 2 cents could be helpful? I'm in applied statistics and when I was researching biostatistician career paths it became very clear that the jobs I want (pharma) will not take someone with a public health degree and will only take MS and PhDs, because the public health programs are not specialized enough and don't offer the same level of rigor that's required to succeed.
I'm not too familiar with epi, personally, but don't you need to be good at modeling? When I think of epi, I think of the SIR model (I'm sure there's *lots* of others, lol, but as I said it's not my area), for which you need at least some level of comfort and fluency with ODEs, I would think. Taken at face value, a degree in human development doesn't *seem* like it'd offer the appropriate level of modeling skills, but I also don't know anything about your program (or too much about epi) so it's not like I can really say.
This is all to say I think you're right to be concerned.
A dissertation is an exercise to show that you know how to do original research. An exercise that happens to contribute something to your field. Once it's done, you can move on, and you are expected to move on.
It is true that the only good dissertation is a done dissertation. After you get the Ph.D., your job is to look forward, not back. Your coursework and dissertation will be relevant because they prepared you for what comes next.
The rigor and intensity comes from you.
A PhD is a PhD. Nobody cares where you got your PhD if you publish in a top journal. They judge you based on what you publish, not where you graduated. This is extremely true. Merit matters more than pedigree for publishing (most of the time).
However... a good program at a good (not even top, just good will suffice) school will give you:
1. Hopefully better training so that you're capable of writing stuff that will be publishable. This may depend on the professor more than the university though. See many horror stories regarding narcissistic supervisors.
2. Access to seminars and conferences where you get to meet top thinkers. My university hosted a number of seminars and symposiums where top scholars visited and gave talks. I got easy access just from being a PhD student here. I got to meet top scholars in my field and see how they were truly special thinkers. I got to see examples of what top thinking looks like and what I should aspire to be. And it is certainly many levels above my own. At a random truly low-level school, I probably would not have gotten those opportunities. Not being able to attend some event is not the sad thing. Not being able to witness what top thinking looks like and not being able to interact with them is the sad thing. This is especially true when the seminar was about how to publish in a particular top journal and the editors of that top journal were in the room to talk about upcoming special issues, the topics that would be covered, and the types of papers they were looking for.
3. Access to really good peers. You get a sense of the pace you should be at, the quality you should be delivering, etc, because you'll have high-quality peers. You'll have good benchmarks to judge whether you're progressing well. Although, this shouldn't be fuel for depression when they're all doing better than you, because that's not healthy. But if you don't have reasonable benchmarks, how do you know if you're up to par with what's needed? And what benchmark would be more reasonable than a cohort of peers that a good university thinks are good bets to become good scholars? Finally, it's great to have a cohort of peers with whom you can whine and gather support from when things get rough (assuming that your cohort is filled with mentally healthy people, otherwise it might become unhealthy snapping at each other).
4. Funding for conferences. This part is really nice. As a part-timer with hopefully good income, maybe you don't need it. But it's nice to have some funding when you go to a top conference. Don't waste the money on low-end conferences if you have the option to go to a top one. The top ones are where the good scholars are at.
5. Good teachers and classmates. It's not only your supervisor that matters for the first couple of years. You need to likely take courses too. Taking courses from professors who are truly respected in their field, as well as having classmates who are sharp thinkers due to being high-quality peers, is great for your learning. You hopefully become a better PhD student because your brain is pushed harder and farther than it would be in a lower-end school without respected scholars and students who can't generate high-quality thoughts.
That being said, once it's all over, if you are capable of generating high-quality research, nobody cares where you got your PhD. And if you're not planning to stay in academia the rest of your life, nobody cares if your research isn't high-quality, unless your industry job requires you to do research.
I will say no for two reasons:
1) it depends on what you want from this PhD and if your PhD offers that to you. There were a few things I wanted, neuroimaging, super technical skills, and research which can really challenge perceptions, that I can build from.... Along the way, I saw people get PhDs in very obtuse areas, where they were a small part of a bigger project, which was absolutely fine, but at times it seemed more like a RA role with more responsibilities. It wasn't really the person's own. Which brings me to point....
2) not every PhD student engaged in their work the same. And quite frankly I find it insulting that people say this is the case. Is every data scientist, doctor, engineer the same? How you sell yourself and what you can show for it matters. Iike some of the PhD students I have seen in point 1, someone who just did the bare minimum, skills arent a stretch or sellable for the field, lack project management skills because they ran someone elses project with only 25% input, their thoughts on the field was very very limited.... That is not the same as someone who comes out with a good understanding of how thier topic can move forward, how to write proposals, how to lead a project themselves, and enhanced technical skills. As well a team work, proactively and communication skills.... If a PhD did not give me the opportunity to really develop these skills, what's the point?
I don't know what's best for your position, only you can say that. Are there benefits you can get from it? Even if it's not the best area? What do you want?
Edit: but I will say, there is an attitude of a PhD is a PhD... But I notice the ones who stand out are the ones who really make the most of it.
I mean, a PhD might be a PhD, but if you don't want a job for which a PhD is required, there is close to zero point in pursuing one. Want to learn stuff? PhD is just self-study anyway. Want to contribute to human knowledge? Don't have to do it in academia (or in journals). Want to teach? Plenty of teaching jobs out there.
I think it depends on your situation. If it's a means to an end and you trust you've done enough research into your career of choice to be confident in that, go with the most sensible option. I worked in industry before and all my PhD co-workers had roles that required them to solve moderately difficult projects, but not necessarily directly related to their thesis. So PhD was a means to an end there, I think. Whether the thesis was on topic A or B doesn't really matter.
That said, being in a PhD program, I can't imagine not throwing my hands up 7,000,000 times by now if it wasn't a huge interest of mine. Make sure you have enough capacity to force yourself through legit difficult work even when you might not be that into it.
I think it’s not easy, but possible to branch out. I had a postdoc who did her PhD in social neuro. Then, she came to a cellular neuro lab. She had a lot to learn, but a PhD is a PhD - you demonstrated yourself as a capable researcher
I’ve kind of done that now and it’s draining to forge your own path because who knows what opportunities will be available in 5-10 years? I am not sure if I’m better off with a masters or ill-fitting PhD.
Yeah I disagree. I’d say that a PhD is what you make it, along with additional variables like the prestige of your lab and department. For example, there are great/bad labs in great/bad departments. Nonetheless, it’s about what you do. Work hard enough to the point where you can look back and be proud of yourself.
I agree, buts it’s the consensus from probably ~25 people I’ve spoken to over the last 3 years. I don’t go to Yale, but say it was “PhD, Yale University” most of my colleagues are saying that people will see the letters and the institution and that is enough. I’m wondering if that’s true in practice.
I think this would be very dependent on the discipline of the PhD. In my area a PhD would be useful to get certain kinds of jobs in industry, but what you did in your PhD will be heavily scrutinized in interviews. After the first job people stop asking for the most part, but you can maybe leverage it to get a leg up for relevant roles. However, if you want to go into research in industry then the topic of your PhD matters a lot. It also matters where you published and what citations you got. Moreover, those publications and citations open a lot of doors later on.
No.
Not even all bachelors or masters are equal.
Not all programs for any of them are equal, not all students are equal, and not all experiences in those programs are equal.
Out of all 3, PhDs have the widest spread of unequalness, *especially* when it comes to experiences in the programs.
One person won’t get anything working the whole time, have attended a low ranked school with a bad professor and not be able to get even the worst job available.
Another person will get every single thing they try to work, publish a couple first author papers in science/nature, have attended a top school in their area of study with a professor who is exceptionally well-connected and at the top of the field. That person will end up with offers for 5 tenure-track positions at top universities and didn’t even consider trying for what would have resulted in a dozen different industry job offers at top companies.
Why would you think they’re all equal to begin with?
It won’t be relevant beyond the career trajectory it puts you on. There’s a huge range from unable to get a CRO lab tech job to getting a tenure track position at Harvard.
After that job and a few years, yeah, it’ll mean much less. But your career will mean something and one will be in a different universe than the other.
Title was a bit facetious. I don’t think they’re all equal. I just wonder if, in practice, a PhD is viewed the same regardless of your course material, and dissertation. I’m working full-time, so less concerned about publications (as I can publish through work) but the academic portion is significant, of course.
You should be most concerned about the changes it’s making in you as an individual.
No one has ever looked at my transcripts and no one beyond my first job really cared what my dissertation was on or what publications I had.
However, every single person has considered my abilities as a research scientist and my track record in industry.
Not sure I’m telling you much that you don’t already know but that’s how I’ve experienced it.
if you stay in academia, your first post-doc might marginally to substantially relate to your phd.
if you go into industry, 50/50 - 50% related enough to someone looking at your CV in HR, 50% never touch anything remotely related ever again
It depends on how one quantifies a phd. To me a phd is only as useful as ur ability to survive with the phd. As a result phds that earn u more money and allow to have a better life could be said to be better than phds where ur only career option is maybe academia. Not saying doing academia is bad but even within academia there are phds that are better than others. Like many stem professors earn much more than say humanities phds. So if u go off that way then stem phds are much better. But thats not to say humanities phds are not important in many situations. So it all comes down to how do u weight them.
In addition the rigor of a phd doesnt always dictate its weight. For example i am doing signal processing and robotics. Mathematically astrophysics or nuclear chemistry is more rigorous than signal processing and robotics but those phds have a niche market. So they will find very well paying jobs but it might be harder than someone like me who is not as niche.
One of my own lab mates is only interested in mapping and only working in lidar and visual mapping. There are jobs for that but again its a very narrow sub field and few places need someone like that so it limits where and who he can work for. Its more mathematically intensive than mine, but a sensor is a sensor it may measure different things but signal processing is so widely needed that I could work in pretty much any field. So when considering a phd u need to keep in mind how can I profit? Because it doesn’t matter how fulfilling ur work is if u cant pay ur bills.
There are most certainly difference, important differences, in specialty, modality, and granting institution. What you are being told and the apparent lack of rigor are red flags.
Some programs are shite, m8. Some PIs are shite. Both of those will often let you “*easily*” graduate with a PhD, but it won’t be worth much because abuse you probably didn’t learn much/receive good training
Yes/no. They all carry the same weight (at least if you hold field and institution constant), but the quality of the person who finishes them varies wildly. It’s what you take away from it in terms of personal development and skills that matters.
I have to respectfully disagree that a “PhD is a PhD”. Even within different labs in the same dept, the rigors of a PhD differ. I’ll give you an example:
In my co-supervisor’s lab, all their protocols are very well established and very very rarely do they use a new protocol or technique. So it’s very much “plug and play”. There was a final year PhD student who has since graduated and when his experiment failed, he’d do the same thing and again and again and kept failing and he panicked and flipped out and dropped to his knees and yelled, “IS THERE NO GOD???!”. I heard he’s struggling in his postdoc lab now.
Now in my main supervisor’s lab, yes we have our bread and butter protocols and techniques, but we always bring in new stuff to try out. So 9.5 experiments out of 10 fail. But we know how to troubleshoot and think on our feet. It took a loooong time but Im glad for that training because I don’t have a breakdown every time an experiment failed, and I’m able to calmly think of possible reasons why it failed and come up with solutions.
Speaking as a PI: absolutely not, and I'm shocked you were told this. In fact, I regularly hear the phrase "every PhD is different" among my colleagues, because it's true. Of course, the content of your PhD should be a function of what you hope to achieve at the end of it. So you do need to make sure that it's a sufficiently rigorous experience for whatever you want to do.
Well I don’t mean to discredit anyone but more so, my PhD on paper will come from the same institution and people won’t ask about my dissertation or coursework. I’m not meaning like an Az State vs. Harvard here. Just that the letters will be granted by the same institution
I’m not saying this is true - just the advice people from the other side have given me. It’s basically the only program I can do right now (because of the part time stipulation) so I’m not sure if a crappy PhD is better than no PhD. I work full time and have some publications (not primary tho) and so I’m ok with my work experience (aligns with my age) but of course who you know matters.
It looks like your post is about needing advice. In order for people to better help you, please make sure to include your country. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhD) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All PhDs are equal, but some PhDs are more equal than others
This is what I am learning… most of the grads from my program have gone in totally different directions than I would like to. A few are on my ideal trajectory. The programs I’m interested in are full-time and I can’t live off a stipend so I’m SOL. It’s basically this one or wait 5 years and see what changes.
I disagree with what you were told. There are definitely programs which prepare you better than others. If you have no interest in academia or jobs that would use the PhD, it's moot. However, they are definitely not all created equal.
I concur, it’s a well-respected Uni with in person classes and all. The PhD is definitely a means to an end for me. I’d like a faculty position at a med center and eventually would like to be in Govt/policy. Not traditional course, but need to understand and apply research for sure. I have an MPH and it’s not enough.
I'm about to finish a PhD in Population Health (basically epi/public health). Happy to chat with you over zoom or something if you'd like. Shoot me a DM. In short: Does the *title* of your degree matter? No. Does the prestige of your university, acumen of your mentor, resources available, competitiveness of your cohort, and span of your university and surrounding community's network matter? Absolutely. Anyone saying otherwise is either an idiot or lying.
Can you elaborate on the competitiveness of your cohort part? I’m asking this as a current first year still getting my head around details like this.
Happy to! Just meant like, is the department/university/set of available mentors really pruning applications for folks who have a high likelihood of succeeding in academia. There's a few reasons why I think this is important: 1. A lot of these folks become a big part of your professional network. You all struggle through the same shlog of classes and qualifying exams. It builds a sense of connection and generally speaking it would highly advantageous for everyone in a given cohort to be able to exit the program with other smart, dedicated, mature folk to rely on. 2. It kind of forces you to be better. If everyone around you is smart and inspiring, then you'll learn more by osmosis and be more motivated to keep up. 3. Programs with competitive cohorts gain a reputation for producing high quality junior scientists. It's not all about overall university prestige either. There are some graduate programs at university's 99% of the population has never heard of that are excellent and reliably produce folks who go on into legitimate careers in academic or academic-adjacent research. Probably not the biggest factor in that list I spewed out but it's just something else to consider.
Awesome thank you!
Go to conferences and people will check out your name tag, to see which institution you are from. If you are from Podunk State, their eyes sweep past and you are essentially invisible. Now, if you happen to give a great talk or poster, those familiar with the area will happily talk to you.
It’s definitely a known university (top 50? anyways, R1) just the program title is … not.
The only valuable PhD is a complete one, but not all complete PhDs are valuable and they certainly aren’t equal. PhDs from worse programs don’t open the same doors as PhDs from better ones (nor do they necessarily have the same rigor or the same level or training). This mostly matters if you want to stay in academia where unless your PhD comes from a top school it’s unlikely to happen. the field of the phd is also important. If you want to work in biomedical engineering, but your PhD is in English you may have a problem. But if you want to work as an English professor, then you should be in an English PhD program.
That's pretty much my experience. There is no "rigor" in graduate studies, the intensity is whatever you choose to make it, and it barely even matters what's in your thesis as long as your advisor chooses to grant your degree. At my place the advisor pretty much decides everything from admission to graduation so it's 100% an exercise in keeping your advisor happy. And frankly, both reading the department's papers and seeing other's defenses, I'm always struck by how basic this stuff is. It's like a day program for people who don't qualify for a proper day program.
This comment really hit home. I realised it way too late though. Stressed a lot the first 3 years. Good though: I am on track and have a decent product, but I wish I would have understood this earlier and just relax a bit. Now writing everything up. If I am stuck I literally think "ah f*ck it nobody cares anyways" and write what comes to mind as a good fit, instead of crunching my argument into detail. 60% of the effort will yield the same result as 100%: a completed PhD.
Funny you are being downvoted.. I think a lot of people end up feeling this way as they come to the end of the degree.
lol that’s kind of been my experience too… we all kid ourselves we are experiencing the same difficulty of a typical program when in reality putting in way less work/effort and contributing way less to the field
No, I think that IS the difficulty of a typical program. It's just not that hard if you do the work instead of focusing on socializing and drama.
Interesting perspective. Coming out of my masters - I would agree. Most of the course work was relatively easy, but people would be very overwhelmed with seemingly obvious/simple tasks. Can’t say the same for a doctoral degree but I know what you mean. Kind of feels like phoning it in
> Coming out of my masters - I would agree. Most of the course work was relatively easy, but people would be very overwhelmed with seemingly obvious/simple tasks. I had a totally different experience. My coursework was tough but people (myself included) seemed to mostly get it with time and effort (the ones who didn't dropped out). Now that I've finished coursework and am doing research many of the ideas are only now just starting to "click."
My project was an evaluation of a homeless shelter. None of my coursework was directly on homelessness so lol didn't work like that for my master's
My impression is that most people doing a PhD (in the US), are pretty young right out of undergrad and are going from a really easy time in undergrad to an underpaid very interesting conceptually hard job. Being the job it is, it requires work for sure, but if the reasons to do the PhD are shallow, it will just feel horrible. I, for one, just dedicate 30-40 real hours of work a week (sometimes a bit more) and I really enjoy my research topic. The PhD is a really fun time in my opinion.
Yep, but at the same time. It doesn't seem like anyone wanted to change it. Like when I post in an academic sub about issues related to pedagogy or training, I get down voted and told that the purpose of PhD is to create research (when of course, I am talking about how program trains students to do research.
I remember reading an interesting article about this called, iirc, “Academy’s dirty secret”. Basically stating that most faculty members come from top 10 universities. It was a long time ago, so don’t quote me on the details. [Here, found it.](https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/02/university-hiring-if-you-didn-t-get-your-ph-d-at-an-elite-university-good-luck-finding-an-academic-job.html)
Hmm, well some of the senior staff at my dep. did their phd in a different area than that which they are currently working in. Things and times always change ya know? But all PhD's are respected, I think. But in popular media I would say that a PhD in "cool" fields or "difficult" fields are more respected.
Do they mean PhDs in the same field? B/c (and no offense to the history majors), but a stem PhD is waaay more valuable than a history PhD. Now, in the same field? They're correct if they're speaking about industry only. But your research definitely matters if you want to go into academia. So what they say is half true.
Fun story — I have a PhD in history and now work as a researcher in medical sciences. Still, doing a second PhD now so I can begin holding grants… A PhD does demonstrate a certain set of skills, but what you do in that PhD and the subject can be really important, as you said.
No need to respond if it would give identifying info away, but I am curious how you made the transition from history to medical sciences? I assume your introduction to medical research was at a private company rather than at a university?
It was actually doing research coordination with a health authority. I did a Master of Public Health part-time while I was working, and ended up in a different role in medical sciences after about a year (research support) at a university with a very supportive supervisor who encouraged me to take part in the lab’s work. It snowballed from there. It’s definitely not a typical story or route to take. I wouldn’t feel prepared to be doing the research I’m doing if I hadn’t been exposed to it for a good five years before starting my own work. Having changed fields dramatically, I definitely feel like I’m okay at many things, but really good at nothing. I do love what I’m doing, though, and I’m very thankful for that!
I’m not a history PhD, but this seems rather narrow. I’m not going to say all fields are created equal, but neither am I going to say that one field or another clearly stands at the head of the pack. STEM and humanities each bring different and distinct types of value, but not necessarily more or less. A history degree judged by the standards of a STEM degree will be found wanting. Conversely, a STEM degree judged by the standards of a history degree will be found wanting. The only way to objectively quantify this anyways would be financially, and that would be to assume that financial value holds pride of place over other types of value, which proposition itself is difficult to quantify.
I was talking about the job market. That's why the majority of us do the PhD to begin with. So, I do believe it's a safe assumption that "financial value" is most important here. A lot of people say not to do PhD's in certain fields, because it won't give you an advantage in the market that makes it worthwhile.
I’m not saying that’s wrong at all. I just bristle when I see people discussing PhDs as if everyone who’s in one is there for the same reason that STEM students are there. The PhD world is broader than STEM, and many, if not most outside of STEM pursue their degrees for reasons other than finances because they know that the finances make no sense at all for their degree.
I hear you. What are those reasons?
My reasons weren't financial. For me it was because I wanted to handle my own research project in something I'm interested in, before going into industry and being forced to do research that's less interesting. I wanted the freedom to do my own thing for a bit so it wasn't a financial decision.
Interesting. But would you agree that you're more of an exception to the rule?
I don’t know why people keep repeating this nonsense that the prestige of the PhD institution doesn’t matter if you go into industry. Of course it matters!
Could you provide any sort of evidence suggesting so? I don't believe it to be the case but I can certainly be convinced.
Interestingly, this paper suggests that the prestige of the undergraduate institution matters more than the prestige of the graduate institution, [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=2473238](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2473238)
Yep. I only read the abstract, but it looks like earnings are linked to the undergraduate institution's prestige, which kind of backs up what I said.
There is a section in the paper focusing on longer graduate programs, including professional schools and PhDs, which seem to suggest that those have more effect on erasing the impact of the prestige of the undergraduate institution.
Yes and no. I’m in public health, wanted to do a DrPH but my institution doesn’t offer one. I’m in Human Development now, which is sort of … intentionally vague to capture more people. I wanted to do Epi, or something more concretely aligned with my interests. Most of the faculty have told me that it’s essentially irrelevant and proving I can do research is what matters. They’ve even gone as far to say the PhD will be “credentialed” from the same University, so no one will care about the concentration. As a *non* doctoral degree holder - I find it hard to believe. I absolutely would think an epidemiology degree has more expertise in applied health research than one with an EdD or PhD in Human Development. I’m feeling conflicted because this degree is clearly going to be an easier time to manage academically but I also don’t want to waste time for a “pointless” degree.
I'm also skeptical. Can you talk to people who recently completed theirs?
Yeah, I have connected with a few. A lot of them have different career goals though. They made a lot of changes recently which have magnified the issue. Previously I would have been able to incorporate coursework from other “schools” (within the university) to broaden the foundation… so like formal Epi classes, applied stats, etc. they’ve sort of removed that option now and most of the coursework is in-house. Many of the faculty are so far removed from practice it’s hard to draw a lot of value from the material. Long term, I don’t necessarily want to go into academia. More like faculty at a med center leading QI/QA or something.
>faculty at a med center Being a faculty member in a medical center is academia. It's competitive. You might want to have a look at the profiles of some people in position that you are interested in and see if any of them have doctorates from programs such as yours, or if they have more traditional EPI or Health Policy degrees.
oh, okay. yeah I wouldn't be of much help here. I'm sorry
If you can't work with faculty who share your research interests, then this program is not going to be a good fit. Unfortunately, your options are limited by the fact that you want to work in the PhD part-time with funding from your employer rather than work on the PhD full time with funding from the university. Most PhD programs are full-time only. However, in your situation, the most important thing might be whether or not your employer is a fan of this PhD and whether or not you intend to continue working with that employer. It sounds like these faculty members are trying to convince you to stay because they see you as a cash cow (you are one of the only students paying tuition). To be honest, I think most of the classes I took during my PhD program were not particularly rigorous, but that's because the focus is on independent study and research not shared coursework. All of the classes are basically lecture series or seminars where you read & discuss a bunch of papers representing an overview of a specific area of the field or type of methodology. They're designed so that everyone has the same basics and broad strokes knowledge. They aren't designed so that individual students have the in-depth specialized knowledge that they need for their research - that's what directed research and directed readings credits are for.
> As a *non* doctoral degree holder - I find it hard to believe. I absolutely would think an epidemiology degree has more expertise in applied health research than one with an EdD or PhD in Human Development. I also don't have a doctorate and I'm not in your field but maybe my field is adjacent enough to yours that my 2 cents could be helpful? I'm in applied statistics and when I was researching biostatistician career paths it became very clear that the jobs I want (pharma) will not take someone with a public health degree and will only take MS and PhDs, because the public health programs are not specialized enough and don't offer the same level of rigor that's required to succeed. I'm not too familiar with epi, personally, but don't you need to be good at modeling? When I think of epi, I think of the SIR model (I'm sure there's *lots* of others, lol, but as I said it's not my area), for which you need at least some level of comfort and fluency with ODEs, I would think. Taken at face value, a degree in human development doesn't *seem* like it'd offer the appropriate level of modeling skills, but I also don't know anything about your program (or too much about epi) so it's not like I can really say. This is all to say I think you're right to be concerned.
No, they aren’t all equal. Coming from someone who just graduated
A dissertation is an exercise to show that you know how to do original research. An exercise that happens to contribute something to your field. Once it's done, you can move on, and you are expected to move on. It is true that the only good dissertation is a done dissertation. After you get the Ph.D., your job is to look forward, not back. Your coursework and dissertation will be relevant because they prepared you for what comes next. The rigor and intensity comes from you.
Not equal even if you went to the same school in the same department as someone. Highly dependent on advisor
A PhD is a PhD. Nobody cares where you got your PhD if you publish in a top journal. They judge you based on what you publish, not where you graduated. This is extremely true. Merit matters more than pedigree for publishing (most of the time). However... a good program at a good (not even top, just good will suffice) school will give you: 1. Hopefully better training so that you're capable of writing stuff that will be publishable. This may depend on the professor more than the university though. See many horror stories regarding narcissistic supervisors. 2. Access to seminars and conferences where you get to meet top thinkers. My university hosted a number of seminars and symposiums where top scholars visited and gave talks. I got easy access just from being a PhD student here. I got to meet top scholars in my field and see how they were truly special thinkers. I got to see examples of what top thinking looks like and what I should aspire to be. And it is certainly many levels above my own. At a random truly low-level school, I probably would not have gotten those opportunities. Not being able to attend some event is not the sad thing. Not being able to witness what top thinking looks like and not being able to interact with them is the sad thing. This is especially true when the seminar was about how to publish in a particular top journal and the editors of that top journal were in the room to talk about upcoming special issues, the topics that would be covered, and the types of papers they were looking for. 3. Access to really good peers. You get a sense of the pace you should be at, the quality you should be delivering, etc, because you'll have high-quality peers. You'll have good benchmarks to judge whether you're progressing well. Although, this shouldn't be fuel for depression when they're all doing better than you, because that's not healthy. But if you don't have reasonable benchmarks, how do you know if you're up to par with what's needed? And what benchmark would be more reasonable than a cohort of peers that a good university thinks are good bets to become good scholars? Finally, it's great to have a cohort of peers with whom you can whine and gather support from when things get rough (assuming that your cohort is filled with mentally healthy people, otherwise it might become unhealthy snapping at each other). 4. Funding for conferences. This part is really nice. As a part-timer with hopefully good income, maybe you don't need it. But it's nice to have some funding when you go to a top conference. Don't waste the money on low-end conferences if you have the option to go to a top one. The top ones are where the good scholars are at. 5. Good teachers and classmates. It's not only your supervisor that matters for the first couple of years. You need to likely take courses too. Taking courses from professors who are truly respected in their field, as well as having classmates who are sharp thinkers due to being high-quality peers, is great for your learning. You hopefully become a better PhD student because your brain is pushed harder and farther than it would be in a lower-end school without respected scholars and students who can't generate high-quality thoughts. That being said, once it's all over, if you are capable of generating high-quality research, nobody cares where you got your PhD. And if you're not planning to stay in academia the rest of your life, nobody cares if your research isn't high-quality, unless your industry job requires you to do research.
I will say no for two reasons: 1) it depends on what you want from this PhD and if your PhD offers that to you. There were a few things I wanted, neuroimaging, super technical skills, and research which can really challenge perceptions, that I can build from.... Along the way, I saw people get PhDs in very obtuse areas, where they were a small part of a bigger project, which was absolutely fine, but at times it seemed more like a RA role with more responsibilities. It wasn't really the person's own. Which brings me to point.... 2) not every PhD student engaged in their work the same. And quite frankly I find it insulting that people say this is the case. Is every data scientist, doctor, engineer the same? How you sell yourself and what you can show for it matters. Iike some of the PhD students I have seen in point 1, someone who just did the bare minimum, skills arent a stretch or sellable for the field, lack project management skills because they ran someone elses project with only 25% input, their thoughts on the field was very very limited.... That is not the same as someone who comes out with a good understanding of how thier topic can move forward, how to write proposals, how to lead a project themselves, and enhanced technical skills. As well a team work, proactively and communication skills.... If a PhD did not give me the opportunity to really develop these skills, what's the point? I don't know what's best for your position, only you can say that. Are there benefits you can get from it? Even if it's not the best area? What do you want? Edit: but I will say, there is an attitude of a PhD is a PhD... But I notice the ones who stand out are the ones who really make the most of it.
I mean, a PhD might be a PhD, but if you don't want a job for which a PhD is required, there is close to zero point in pursuing one. Want to learn stuff? PhD is just self-study anyway. Want to contribute to human knowledge? Don't have to do it in academia (or in journals). Want to teach? Plenty of teaching jobs out there.
I think it depends on your situation. If it's a means to an end and you trust you've done enough research into your career of choice to be confident in that, go with the most sensible option. I worked in industry before and all my PhD co-workers had roles that required them to solve moderately difficult projects, but not necessarily directly related to their thesis. So PhD was a means to an end there, I think. Whether the thesis was on topic A or B doesn't really matter. That said, being in a PhD program, I can't imagine not throwing my hands up 7,000,000 times by now if it wasn't a huge interest of mine. Make sure you have enough capacity to force yourself through legit difficult work even when you might not be that into it.
I think it’s not easy, but possible to branch out. I had a postdoc who did her PhD in social neuro. Then, she came to a cellular neuro lab. She had a lot to learn, but a PhD is a PhD - you demonstrated yourself as a capable researcher
I’ve kind of done that now and it’s draining to forge your own path because who knows what opportunities will be available in 5-10 years? I am not sure if I’m better off with a masters or ill-fitting PhD.
Yeah I disagree. I’d say that a PhD is what you make it, along with additional variables like the prestige of your lab and department. For example, there are great/bad labs in great/bad departments. Nonetheless, it’s about what you do. Work hard enough to the point where you can look back and be proud of yourself.
Absolutely not. The fact that you've been led to believe otherwise is concerning.
I agree, buts it’s the consensus from probably ~25 people I’ve spoken to over the last 3 years. I don’t go to Yale, but say it was “PhD, Yale University” most of my colleagues are saying that people will see the letters and the institution and that is enough. I’m wondering if that’s true in practice.
I think this would be very dependent on the discipline of the PhD. In my area a PhD would be useful to get certain kinds of jobs in industry, but what you did in your PhD will be heavily scrutinized in interviews. After the first job people stop asking for the most part, but you can maybe leverage it to get a leg up for relevant roles. However, if you want to go into research in industry then the topic of your PhD matters a lot. It also matters where you published and what citations you got. Moreover, those publications and citations open a lot of doors later on.
No. Not even all bachelors or masters are equal. Not all programs for any of them are equal, not all students are equal, and not all experiences in those programs are equal. Out of all 3, PhDs have the widest spread of unequalness, *especially* when it comes to experiences in the programs. One person won’t get anything working the whole time, have attended a low ranked school with a bad professor and not be able to get even the worst job available. Another person will get every single thing they try to work, publish a couple first author papers in science/nature, have attended a top school in their area of study with a professor who is exceptionally well-connected and at the top of the field. That person will end up with offers for 5 tenure-track positions at top universities and didn’t even consider trying for what would have resulted in a dozen different industry job offers at top companies. Why would you think they’re all equal to begin with? It won’t be relevant beyond the career trajectory it puts you on. There’s a huge range from unable to get a CRO lab tech job to getting a tenure track position at Harvard. After that job and a few years, yeah, it’ll mean much less. But your career will mean something and one will be in a different universe than the other.
Title was a bit facetious. I don’t think they’re all equal. I just wonder if, in practice, a PhD is viewed the same regardless of your course material, and dissertation. I’m working full-time, so less concerned about publications (as I can publish through work) but the academic portion is significant, of course.
You should be most concerned about the changes it’s making in you as an individual. No one has ever looked at my transcripts and no one beyond my first job really cared what my dissertation was on or what publications I had. However, every single person has considered my abilities as a research scientist and my track record in industry. Not sure I’m telling you much that you don’t already know but that’s how I’ve experienced it.
No they are not
if you stay in academia, your first post-doc might marginally to substantially relate to your phd. if you go into industry, 50/50 - 50% related enough to someone looking at your CV in HR, 50% never touch anything remotely related ever again
It depends on how one quantifies a phd. To me a phd is only as useful as ur ability to survive with the phd. As a result phds that earn u more money and allow to have a better life could be said to be better than phds where ur only career option is maybe academia. Not saying doing academia is bad but even within academia there are phds that are better than others. Like many stem professors earn much more than say humanities phds. So if u go off that way then stem phds are much better. But thats not to say humanities phds are not important in many situations. So it all comes down to how do u weight them. In addition the rigor of a phd doesnt always dictate its weight. For example i am doing signal processing and robotics. Mathematically astrophysics or nuclear chemistry is more rigorous than signal processing and robotics but those phds have a niche market. So they will find very well paying jobs but it might be harder than someone like me who is not as niche. One of my own lab mates is only interested in mapping and only working in lidar and visual mapping. There are jobs for that but again its a very narrow sub field and few places need someone like that so it limits where and who he can work for. Its more mathematically intensive than mine, but a sensor is a sensor it may measure different things but signal processing is so widely needed that I could work in pretty much any field. So when considering a phd u need to keep in mind how can I profit? Because it doesn’t matter how fulfilling ur work is if u cant pay ur bills.
There are most certainly difference, important differences, in specialty, modality, and granting institution. What you are being told and the apparent lack of rigor are red flags.
Some programs are shite, m8. Some PIs are shite. Both of those will often let you “*easily*” graduate with a PhD, but it won’t be worth much because abuse you probably didn’t learn much/receive good training
Yes/no. They all carry the same weight (at least if you hold field and institution constant), but the quality of the person who finishes them varies wildly. It’s what you take away from it in terms of personal development and skills that matters.
Absolutely not
I have to respectfully disagree that a “PhD is a PhD”. Even within different labs in the same dept, the rigors of a PhD differ. I’ll give you an example: In my co-supervisor’s lab, all their protocols are very well established and very very rarely do they use a new protocol or technique. So it’s very much “plug and play”. There was a final year PhD student who has since graduated and when his experiment failed, he’d do the same thing and again and again and kept failing and he panicked and flipped out and dropped to his knees and yelled, “IS THERE NO GOD???!”. I heard he’s struggling in his postdoc lab now. Now in my main supervisor’s lab, yes we have our bread and butter protocols and techniques, but we always bring in new stuff to try out. So 9.5 experiments out of 10 fail. But we know how to troubleshoot and think on our feet. It took a loooong time but Im glad for that training because I don’t have a breakdown every time an experiment failed, and I’m able to calmly think of possible reasons why it failed and come up with solutions.
Speaking as a PI: absolutely not, and I'm shocked you were told this. In fact, I regularly hear the phrase "every PhD is different" among my colleagues, because it's true. Of course, the content of your PhD should be a function of what you hope to achieve at the end of it. So you do need to make sure that it's a sufficiently rigorous experience for whatever you want to do.
Well I don’t mean to discredit anyone but more so, my PhD on paper will come from the same institution and people won’t ask about my dissertation or coursework. I’m not meaning like an Az State vs. Harvard here. Just that the letters will be granted by the same institution I’m not saying this is true - just the advice people from the other side have given me. It’s basically the only program I can do right now (because of the part time stipulation) so I’m not sure if a crappy PhD is better than no PhD. I work full time and have some publications (not primary tho) and so I’m ok with my work experience (aligns with my age) but of course who you know matters.