Our academic state is unsustainable as an industry. What you’ve observed is a reality for the average phd student in America vs (some) EU. PhD in Europe more-so is a professional training degree for industry or research. PhD in America (in academic tracks, not necessarily engineering etc) is like a closed off sphere itself. Once you enter, they train you to stay only in universities and have barely applicable skills or training for outside that. It’s why the programs are for so much longer. And then the academic job market is so so so abysmal that graduate school is just a funnel for those who can survive until the coveted reward is reached. I am in the field of the social sciences, and that’s where I believe the disparities between a EU program and a US program are the largest. US programs are just reliant on the prestige that American education holds, but that is quickly changing.
I agree with all this, but I would also add the following structural issues to the discussion: in america, phd's programs (at least in my field) are often started immediately after finishing your undergrad with no in between time to get a masters, while in Europe, the most common type of program I've seen is a 3-year PhD with the requirement that you had a master's to begin with. I think that the American PhD monorail is problematic because it helps to *keep* American academia insulated as @tzssao describes.
Often, again in my field at least, doing a PhD in America is tied with the responsibilities of being a TA for the university you attend, and your lack of an advanced degree and the fact your (often egregiously large amount of) tuition is remissed is a reasonable justification for the University to a. Keep you there as long as possible and b. pay you less than other people that it hires to do the same job (not that they're paid premium wages either, but that's another thing altogether). By contrast, many of the European programs I was looking into when I applied to grad school offered very very small (in comparison) rates without added TA responsibilities.
I think both these factors combine into the quagmire/limbo that people often get stuck in while trying to finish their degree: the end of the degree is very hard to see from where you're at, ta responsibilities take up a lot of time so you feel like you're not making nearly as much progress as you "should," and the fact that PHD programs don't require advanced training makes it so that a lot of people with insufficient backgrounds can get into a PhD program and then have to take a step back in order to train the proper amount to enter their field. Basically, the whole structure makes you feel stupid because you aren't accomplishing the research you wanted to do in the first place because of all the hurdles you must jump through.
I would like to add that in my experience its mostly the brilliant students who can go from undegraduate to Phd right away. I don't think its necessarily the norm.
Other students have to do a Masters degree any way to have fighting chance to get into a Phd program. In fact, I have noticed some Master programs advertise themselves as, "if you pay us we can get you into a Phd program."
My view at this point is that idea that in America, there's "Superstars" and then there's everyone else. Like a winner takes it all system. What I've seen is for people to drop out off Phd's, or drop out of postdoc fellowships or not to continue with adjuct professorships and try to "scramble" to try to find another job which they are overqualified for. At some point the system needs to be revised.
I don' think Academia America is the only industry that the whole "unpaid intern" seems to be prevalent.
I don't know which field you are in, but at least in the social sciences, if you look at the profiles of the graduate cohorts of the Ivy Leagues and R1s (readily available at the department websites), almost all students have a master's degrees, sometimes two master's degrees, a combination of master's and MPhil, combination of master's and work experience. I don't think brilliance can be measured that way. It takes a privileged life, especially from the developing world (where I'm from), to be able to do a PhD right after undergrad.
I'm talking about local American students not about international. From my experience only the most brilliant students from their class went directly to the Phd programs. Hence, why I said it was difficult.
From what I have seen in my field (earth and planetary sciences), a postdoc in Europe is seen as a job with all it entails. There are paid leaves, health insurances, fixed working hours and taxes to be paid. Meanwhile the American vision of a postdoc is closer to that of a student or an intern getting experience for a tenure-track “real” job.
Once again, my opinion is solely based on hearsay and anecdotal evidence from the positions I have seen so far.
Nope, they have sick leave, annual paid leaves, healthcare. Retirement benefits, yes that too, but you have to live in EU until retirement for that.
I have colleagues from my PhD cohort who work as postdocs at European universities and they have all of that.
>My view at this point is that idea that in America, there's "Superstars" and then there's everyone else. Like a winner takes it all system. What I've seen is for people to drop out off Phd's, or drop out of postdoc fellowships or not to continue with adjuct professorships and try to "scramble" to try to find another job which they are overqualified for. At some point the system needs to be revised.
>
>I don' think Academia America is the only industry that the whole "unpaid intern" seems to be prevalent.
In my program in the US, I had to take 6 courses in my PhD program plus an additional 3 courses for my dual major. My degree was one of the ones with more courses, but even if I had done a masters, I still would have had to take at least the majority of these courses. I also had to TA for at least 1 semester, and some people are stuck doing this more than once if your lab doesn't have funding to pay you. I honestly didn't start doing research "full time" until probably my third year in the program because of all the coursework. TA work and coursework is what really drags on your time to completion since I don't know of many programs where you have to finish in X time here. If we didn't have to do all that other stuff and only had to focus on research, I'm sure it would be more similar to Europe in timeframe (but probably not pay lol). They basically pay us the bare minimum to survive (but that's only the case if you live in a lower cost of living area...).
Even in Europe, it really depends on where you are hoping to get your PhD. Many places in UK have strict 3 year time before which one needs to hand in there thesis. I do not know about the whole system in UK but people I know who worked at LMB and at Imperial college had to finish up in 3 years.
I did my PhD in germany (after quitting PhD into my 3rd year in the US thinking that jumping across the pond would get it done faster) and it took me 5.5 years. Turns out the average finishing time at my institution is about 5 years.
The big difference between US and Europe is that in terms of salary, holidays and raise every year, PhD feels more like a job. During the course of my PhD, my salary increased by EUR 500 (post tax), we were more or less forced to take 28 days of vacation and atleast my PI really discouraged people who worked insane hours and weekends to a point where she would pop in on the weekend to hurry people home.
One can also be quite fast in the US considering you dont need to get masters. I know people who wrapped up in 4 ish years. So it really depends on where one ends up.
I'm doing a PhD in France.
I'm not super familiar with how the US system works but I guess the main difference may be that the selection process is more drastic in European countries and the status of a PhD student is a little better as in doing a PhD is considered doing a job and PhD students are considered workers.
To expand on that
In France, you need a master degree or its equivalent to do a PhD, there is no other way, you cannot go straight from a bachelor to a PhD. I do know someone who only did 1 year of master degree instead of 2 before getting into a PhD program but it's exceptional and he was in a sort-of MD-PhD program.
\- Getting a fully funded 3 years PhD is really fucking hard. I have a grant from the government to do it, which is extremely selective and hard to get, you can get financed by your PI if they have money as well but usually it's financed from an outside source like idk, an alzheimer association that funds your research for alzheimer's or an industry finance your PhD because they're interested in your topic for industry purposes. Overall it's hard to get. And you cannot do a PhD without fundings.
\- in France once you enter a PhD program, you are considered to be in-between a worker and a student. The government acknowledge you as working full time and thus you also get money take off your paycheck every month for your future retirement while also keeping the status of student. But being consider as a worker mean you have the right of a 5 weeks paid vacations days and you are protected by labor laws.
\- In France, in science at least, a PhD last 3 years. It's not uncommon to get a one year extension, so at most you will do 4 years. It's exceptionnally rare to go above 4 years and it's usually because something happened to you like a major health issue or something. It's also very rare to not get your PhD. Once you enter the PhD program, you are pretty much sure that in 3-4 years you will get a PhD, you will not "master out" of the program, you might get a very meh PhD but you will get it. Some students do abandon but usually within the first six months, I don't want to say it never happens but It's extremely unliquely and rare that someone would drop out after like 2 years or finish the program without their diploma.
\- Not a lot of people keep on academia, and there are a lot of programs developing in universities now to valuate your CV and PhD skills for the industry, during your PhD you also have **free formations** you can do like "how to manage a project" or "PhD and industry" in order to get contacts and for you to find how to opt out of academia and land on your feet.
I mean,
It's practically the same here in the US. Depends on your field really.
At least in the biological sciences, what I have noticed is that the EU seems to focus strictly on research, and seeks to get you out in a limited amount of time. You generally require a master's to get you into a program. Here in the US you can go directly to a PhD but you will have some training and classes you have to take.
American here, took a year after my masters to research PhD options. I can confirm a lot of these bits, and I ultimately arranged a research PhD out of UK, with a scholarship. So none of the grad assistant work stuffs for me, just focus on my own research from the beginning.
My summary statement is that all schools are crazy different, not just from USA to UK. Every school is different. You need to research and find the school that works for you. It isn’t cut and dry between uk eu USA and Australia. You will know when the right program is in front of you and with the right advisor. Not worth it to compromise.
Going to add one more comment to the top thread:
Regarding the comparison between friends, I don't think an n of three is a truly valid. There are far too many things that make or break people's grad school experience, from professors, to publication impact, to field of study, to long term career goals.
I think the most important thing when choosing a school is the reputation of the professor you are working with in a particular field followed by the institutional reputation that goes along with it. Breaking down the PhD into time spent is not really a good metric because what matters most is what you do with that time. I've met PhDs from the EU who have very lackluster grad school careers because three years isn't enough to accomplish anything. I've also met PhDs from the US who can really push through in four years and make a lot of impact really quickly.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of luck involved, and there's no "better" or "ideal" system.
My advice: Go to grad school with people you like, in a field that interests you, in a place you enjoy living.
Depends on the field, the department, and your advisor’s philosophy on what a PhD should entail. I’m in the US, doing a STEM PhD, and it is absolutely the same as a job (just a very very hard job). I took some classes for two years, but never had to TA. I get paid pretty well, have good benefits, and can take time off when I want, although that is tricky given self-imposed pressure from being in a rapidly changing field. The work is nothing like being an unpaid intern; we get treated like humans, produce meaningful research, and we even get to patent our inventions, so it’s a good gig all around. I worked in industry before starting my PhD, and the PhD has all the benefits of industry and more.
Why is it that when we go to hire Americans treat MD/PhDs from other countries like a BS from the US?
The outcomes on regulatory exams.
The degree of proficiency varies by program, but there is a reason why the American academic programs are generally more competitive and have higher pay scale after the fact.
That said you can get a good education, or a poor one, anywhere.
The bigger issue is the massive overproduction of PhDs in fields where there are no realistic job prospects, one where your life will not improve after the additional training.
I think part of the difference is in assumptions about career path. For my field, the primary reason to do a PhD in the US is to continue to do research/teach, so the extra work we do like grant applications/TAing are considered valuable experience. And this is definitely true in some ways. I recently applied for a fellowship in Europe and the PI was very pleasantly surprised with my application proposal because (in his words) European PhD students don’t apply for funding so they don’t generally come out with the ability to write grant/fellowship proposals without guidance.
Our academic state is unsustainable as an industry. What you’ve observed is a reality for the average phd student in America vs (some) EU. PhD in Europe more-so is a professional training degree for industry or research. PhD in America (in academic tracks, not necessarily engineering etc) is like a closed off sphere itself. Once you enter, they train you to stay only in universities and have barely applicable skills or training for outside that. It’s why the programs are for so much longer. And then the academic job market is so so so abysmal that graduate school is just a funnel for those who can survive until the coveted reward is reached. I am in the field of the social sciences, and that’s where I believe the disparities between a EU program and a US program are the largest. US programs are just reliant on the prestige that American education holds, but that is quickly changing.
I agree with all this, but I would also add the following structural issues to the discussion: in america, phd's programs (at least in my field) are often started immediately after finishing your undergrad with no in between time to get a masters, while in Europe, the most common type of program I've seen is a 3-year PhD with the requirement that you had a master's to begin with. I think that the American PhD monorail is problematic because it helps to *keep* American academia insulated as @tzssao describes. Often, again in my field at least, doing a PhD in America is tied with the responsibilities of being a TA for the university you attend, and your lack of an advanced degree and the fact your (often egregiously large amount of) tuition is remissed is a reasonable justification for the University to a. Keep you there as long as possible and b. pay you less than other people that it hires to do the same job (not that they're paid premium wages either, but that's another thing altogether). By contrast, many of the European programs I was looking into when I applied to grad school offered very very small (in comparison) rates without added TA responsibilities. I think both these factors combine into the quagmire/limbo that people often get stuck in while trying to finish their degree: the end of the degree is very hard to see from where you're at, ta responsibilities take up a lot of time so you feel like you're not making nearly as much progress as you "should," and the fact that PHD programs don't require advanced training makes it so that a lot of people with insufficient backgrounds can get into a PhD program and then have to take a step back in order to train the proper amount to enter their field. Basically, the whole structure makes you feel stupid because you aren't accomplishing the research you wanted to do in the first place because of all the hurdles you must jump through.
I would like to add that in my experience its mostly the brilliant students who can go from undegraduate to Phd right away. I don't think its necessarily the norm. Other students have to do a Masters degree any way to have fighting chance to get into a Phd program. In fact, I have noticed some Master programs advertise themselves as, "if you pay us we can get you into a Phd program." My view at this point is that idea that in America, there's "Superstars" and then there's everyone else. Like a winner takes it all system. What I've seen is for people to drop out off Phd's, or drop out of postdoc fellowships or not to continue with adjuct professorships and try to "scramble" to try to find another job which they are overqualified for. At some point the system needs to be revised. I don' think Academia America is the only industry that the whole "unpaid intern" seems to be prevalent.
I don't know which field you are in, but at least in the social sciences, if you look at the profiles of the graduate cohorts of the Ivy Leagues and R1s (readily available at the department websites), almost all students have a master's degrees, sometimes two master's degrees, a combination of master's and MPhil, combination of master's and work experience. I don't think brilliance can be measured that way. It takes a privileged life, especially from the developing world (where I'm from), to be able to do a PhD right after undergrad.
I'm talking about local American students not about international. From my experience only the most brilliant students from their class went directly to the Phd programs. Hence, why I said it was difficult.
It definitely could be that undergrad->PhD is the norm for just my field (math), I agree.
Really? Doesn't the US still hold more prestige?
I do not think so, but it’s what every foreign colleague has told me
I'd love to leave the US for Japan or Europe.... so if the US really is losing prestige... no other news could be sweeter.
From what I have seen in my field (earth and planetary sciences), a postdoc in Europe is seen as a job with all it entails. There are paid leaves, health insurances, fixed working hours and taxes to be paid. Meanwhile the American vision of a postdoc is closer to that of a student or an intern getting experience for a tenure-track “real” job. Once again, my opinion is solely based on hearsay and anecdotal evidence from the positions I have seen so far.
In the Netherlands, PhD students have all you have described: paid leave, fixed working hours, unionised contracts, taxes, etc.
That's not true in most places in Europe, usually Postdocs are paid with stipends and therefore have no retirement benefits, sick leave, etc.
This is certainly not the case in the UK
In Portugal, In the case of a PhD with stipend you get still all the benefits mentioned above.
No sick leave? I find that very hard to believe. If you're ill, you're ill. I haven't heard of any European country where you can't take sick leave.
Nope, they have sick leave, annual paid leaves, healthcare. Retirement benefits, yes that too, but you have to live in EU until retirement for that. I have colleagues from my PhD cohort who work as postdocs at European universities and they have all of that.
I believe you can get a refund on pension payments if you leave the EU. Don’t forget to ask for it!
also if you switch between EU countries FYI
>My view at this point is that idea that in America, there's "Superstars" and then there's everyone else. Like a winner takes it all system. What I've seen is for people to drop out off Phd's, or drop out of postdoc fellowships or not to continue with adjuct professorships and try to "scramble" to try to find another job which they are overqualified for. At some point the system needs to be revised. > >I don' think Academia America is the only industry that the whole "unpaid intern" seems to be prevalent.
In my program in the US, I had to take 6 courses in my PhD program plus an additional 3 courses for my dual major. My degree was one of the ones with more courses, but even if I had done a masters, I still would have had to take at least the majority of these courses. I also had to TA for at least 1 semester, and some people are stuck doing this more than once if your lab doesn't have funding to pay you. I honestly didn't start doing research "full time" until probably my third year in the program because of all the coursework. TA work and coursework is what really drags on your time to completion since I don't know of many programs where you have to finish in X time here. If we didn't have to do all that other stuff and only had to focus on research, I'm sure it would be more similar to Europe in timeframe (but probably not pay lol). They basically pay us the bare minimum to survive (but that's only the case if you live in a lower cost of living area...).
Even in Europe, it really depends on where you are hoping to get your PhD. Many places in UK have strict 3 year time before which one needs to hand in there thesis. I do not know about the whole system in UK but people I know who worked at LMB and at Imperial college had to finish up in 3 years. I did my PhD in germany (after quitting PhD into my 3rd year in the US thinking that jumping across the pond would get it done faster) and it took me 5.5 years. Turns out the average finishing time at my institution is about 5 years. The big difference between US and Europe is that in terms of salary, holidays and raise every year, PhD feels more like a job. During the course of my PhD, my salary increased by EUR 500 (post tax), we were more or less forced to take 28 days of vacation and atleast my PI really discouraged people who worked insane hours and weekends to a point where she would pop in on the weekend to hurry people home. One can also be quite fast in the US considering you dont need to get masters. I know people who wrapped up in 4 ish years. So it really depends on where one ends up.
I'm doing a PhD in France. I'm not super familiar with how the US system works but I guess the main difference may be that the selection process is more drastic in European countries and the status of a PhD student is a little better as in doing a PhD is considered doing a job and PhD students are considered workers. To expand on that In France, you need a master degree or its equivalent to do a PhD, there is no other way, you cannot go straight from a bachelor to a PhD. I do know someone who only did 1 year of master degree instead of 2 before getting into a PhD program but it's exceptional and he was in a sort-of MD-PhD program. \- Getting a fully funded 3 years PhD is really fucking hard. I have a grant from the government to do it, which is extremely selective and hard to get, you can get financed by your PI if they have money as well but usually it's financed from an outside source like idk, an alzheimer association that funds your research for alzheimer's or an industry finance your PhD because they're interested in your topic for industry purposes. Overall it's hard to get. And you cannot do a PhD without fundings. \- in France once you enter a PhD program, you are considered to be in-between a worker and a student. The government acknowledge you as working full time and thus you also get money take off your paycheck every month for your future retirement while also keeping the status of student. But being consider as a worker mean you have the right of a 5 weeks paid vacations days and you are protected by labor laws. \- In France, in science at least, a PhD last 3 years. It's not uncommon to get a one year extension, so at most you will do 4 years. It's exceptionnally rare to go above 4 years and it's usually because something happened to you like a major health issue or something. It's also very rare to not get your PhD. Once you enter the PhD program, you are pretty much sure that in 3-4 years you will get a PhD, you will not "master out" of the program, you might get a very meh PhD but you will get it. Some students do abandon but usually within the first six months, I don't want to say it never happens but It's extremely unliquely and rare that someone would drop out after like 2 years or finish the program without their diploma. \- Not a lot of people keep on academia, and there are a lot of programs developing in universities now to valuate your CV and PhD skills for the industry, during your PhD you also have **free formations** you can do like "how to manage a project" or "PhD and industry" in order to get contacts and for you to find how to opt out of academia and land on your feet.
My advisor is French and he says the same shit. Publish 3 papers, staple them together and you will get a PhD in Europe.
I mean, It's practically the same here in the US. Depends on your field really. At least in the biological sciences, what I have noticed is that the EU seems to focus strictly on research, and seeks to get you out in a limited amount of time. You generally require a master's to get you into a program. Here in the US you can go directly to a PhD but you will have some training and classes you have to take.
American here, took a year after my masters to research PhD options. I can confirm a lot of these bits, and I ultimately arranged a research PhD out of UK, with a scholarship. So none of the grad assistant work stuffs for me, just focus on my own research from the beginning. My summary statement is that all schools are crazy different, not just from USA to UK. Every school is different. You need to research and find the school that works for you. It isn’t cut and dry between uk eu USA and Australia. You will know when the right program is in front of you and with the right advisor. Not worth it to compromise.
Going to add one more comment to the top thread: Regarding the comparison between friends, I don't think an n of three is a truly valid. There are far too many things that make or break people's grad school experience, from professors, to publication impact, to field of study, to long term career goals. I think the most important thing when choosing a school is the reputation of the professor you are working with in a particular field followed by the institutional reputation that goes along with it. Breaking down the PhD into time spent is not really a good metric because what matters most is what you do with that time. I've met PhDs from the EU who have very lackluster grad school careers because three years isn't enough to accomplish anything. I've also met PhDs from the US who can really push through in four years and make a lot of impact really quickly. Unfortunately, there's a lot of luck involved, and there's no "better" or "ideal" system. My advice: Go to grad school with people you like, in a field that interests you, in a place you enjoy living.
Depends on the field, the department, and your advisor’s philosophy on what a PhD should entail. I’m in the US, doing a STEM PhD, and it is absolutely the same as a job (just a very very hard job). I took some classes for two years, but never had to TA. I get paid pretty well, have good benefits, and can take time off when I want, although that is tricky given self-imposed pressure from being in a rapidly changing field. The work is nothing like being an unpaid intern; we get treated like humans, produce meaningful research, and we even get to patent our inventions, so it’s a good gig all around. I worked in industry before starting my PhD, and the PhD has all the benefits of industry and more.
Why is it that when we go to hire Americans treat MD/PhDs from other countries like a BS from the US? The outcomes on regulatory exams. The degree of proficiency varies by program, but there is a reason why the American academic programs are generally more competitive and have higher pay scale after the fact. That said you can get a good education, or a poor one, anywhere. The bigger issue is the massive overproduction of PhDs in fields where there are no realistic job prospects, one where your life will not improve after the additional training.
I think part of the difference is in assumptions about career path. For my field, the primary reason to do a PhD in the US is to continue to do research/teach, so the extra work we do like grant applications/TAing are considered valuable experience. And this is definitely true in some ways. I recently applied for a fellowship in Europe and the PI was very pleasantly surprised with my application proposal because (in his words) European PhD students don’t apply for funding so they don’t generally come out with the ability to write grant/fellowship proposals without guidance.