Hacker News Reader

Comment by tombert | Hacker News Reader

> You definitely aren’t too old

By "old" I didn't mean actual biological age exactly. I guess the more appropriate word would be something more like "settled". As it stands, I have a mortgage and whatnot to take care of, it's not really realistic for me to quit my job and focus full-time on a PhD for the next 5-6 years.

> but I would never take on a PhD student that wants to continue working elsewhere

That seems to be the consensus in the US for the most part. Ironically, it's actually easier for a working American to get a distance-learning PhD from a British university than it is to get a local PhD in person in the states.

Right now I'm in the process of trying to get into University of York's distance part-time PhD, while remaining in NY. It's a long shot but it's basically my only option.

View on HN

EU Professor here.

You're right, expectations are very different in the "old continent". Things very quite significantly from country to country, but generally speaking in most EU you can do your PhD while working.

Retrospectively, knowing what I know know, I should add that if I were to start a PhD now I wouldn't trust a university that asks for a full time commitment, no exceptions.

I would be very suspicious that they will burden me with all kind of side activities (e.g. tutoring undergraduate students, handling bureaucracy, paper work, etc.) that are not really of any actual help towards the thesis.

As a professor my view is that PhD students should have quite a lot of "free time" to explore, try different things and fail as many times as possible, with the highest degree of freedom allowed by the domain in which they work. I think that that's at the core of what academic research is all about.

If you don't need lab equipment or anything that requires in person training, I'd say to go absolutely for a remote position as a PhD student. It doesn't really make a huge difference if you can do everything you need in front of a computer.

If you can do your PhD fully remotely, the two most important things are how respected and wel known is the university in which you enrol, and the tutor that will be assigned to you (don't underestimate this!).

Best of luck!

PS you're definitely not too old, and not too settled, as long as you have "hunger" for understanding how things around you work!

> in most EU you can do your PhD while working.

You really can't at good universities in the UK. At Cambridge we had to get special permission to live more than 10 miles from Great St Mary's. My advisor's advice was that it was near impossible to finish up while working.

Had enough of Americans telling me about their excruciatingly long PhD programmes when half of that time is spent teaching and doing exams which we'd probably call an MSc. Or half of a post-doc position.

3-4 years is a great length of time for a contract where you're subject to such a power imbalance.

Yes, I have recently completed a PhD at a UK university (aged late 30s). I was able to get full funding for my salary and lab resources for 3 years. I worked so hard and submitted after 4 years. Can't imagine how I could have done those three years while working - it was a very much full-time occupation, if not more.

Fascinating. Was there a lot of coursework, or was this dissertation-based?

The reason I say fascinating is that people do part-time law degrees (25-30 hours a week estimated commitment) while working at times demanding jobs. However, I am very willing to belive that law school is a lot more straightforward than a PhD (attrition rates in elite law schools are below 1%, as opposed to 35%-50% for elite PhD programs).

There wasn't any coursework - just a single thesis at the end. I think some people do achieve a PhD alongside work, but it can be a long process. I also think things have changed these days in that decades ago you could take as long as you liked, whereas now they're very strict about you handing it in completed in 4 years after registration. It maybe that you can register part-time and the deadline is subsequently pushed back, but I imagine it can be a bit risky as departments change and supervisors will come and go if you're taking more than 5 years to do it. The other aspect is what type of PhD it is. For laboratory work it can be hard to fit that around work, especially if you're receiving samples on another timetable.

The funding that you were granted covered your full traditional salary and not a shoe-string budget? I really want to do graduate studies full time but I'm struggling to figure it out financially.

Yes it covered my clinical salary and had around 20'000 per year for the lab work. It was very generous, but hard to get. Also, the year after I got it, the recession had truly hit and charities and research organisations stopped most of their funding.

It was hard applying for the grants, but it is possible in your spare time. You can talk to potential supervisors and they can point you towards grants coming up - and help you write them.

A few decent universities in the UK appear to be somewhat amenable to the idea of part-time distance learning for a PhD. I don't think University of York is considered a bad school by any measure, and it has a program for such things.

https://www.york.ac.uk/distance-learning/courses/#computer-s...

I wonder if anyone knows the answer to this Q. Back in the day, UK universities, and in particular Open University, often let you take as long as you liked to finish a Phd. I knew someone who in the 1980s got a lecturer job at Cambridge Uni with only a Masters, and over a period of 16 yrs got a Phd part-time. But it seems this got clamped down, and now unis don't like to see anyone take longer than 6 yrs to complete a Phd, thus restricting opportunities for those working full-time / raising families at the same time. Does anyone know of some exception to this? I quite fancy doing a Phd myself one day, but I assume I'd have to do it in "stealth mode" unofficially for a few yrs without a supervisor first, getting quite far down the line then approaching a supervisor when it seemed like could complete it within 6 yrs, and that whole approach seems potentially to have pit-falls

Brian May started a PhD in astrophysics at Imperial college in the 70s and dropped out when Queen took off. He then re-registered in 2006 and completed so it was clearly possible at that time.

I'm a long-haired musician PhD-dropout, and his story is a great inspiration.

Even though he has nicer hair and is a much better musician.

Interesting story about the lecturer. The RAND institute proposed an alternative approach to PhDs modeled more on professional degrees. Law professors, for instance, typical complete law degrees in a very predicable 3 years and build their publications on the job as well paid professors.

This suggestion in the RAND paper was part of an article concluding that there is no shortage of interest in STEM PhDs, and that the aversion US citizens have to these PhD programs is rational and market based when compared to outcomes from professional degrees with (comparably) short, predictable completion times and vastly lower attrition rates.

In other words, if there really were a shortage of PhD STEM students, the career path you described would be plentiful and typical (well, not the 16 year part, but the model of getting good, stable, paid employment after a shorter and more easily completed degree, followed by a process of building publications in that role).

For now, unfortunately, the main lesson is to just say no to PhDs, unless you have a very very strong personal interest in completing one.

> I quite fancy doing a Phd myself one day, but I assume I'd have to do it in "stealth mode" unofficially for a few yrs without a supervisor first

I'd suggest you think very carefully about this first. There's a very high chance the stealth mode work will be non-useful for getting onto a programme. Similar to how working on a 'build it and they will come' approach is generally disadvised for startups. Obviously it depends on how much of a lone genius you are but only you know that ;)

Thank you for friendly helpful advice :) Yeah I've misgivings too. Ha ha I've no idea whether I'm a lone genius or not. I've a hunch for an approach to an area of study which I believe other people have steadfastly ignored or not noticed. Now either (a) they're all informed and I'm not, and they're right not to waste time on such a fruitless approach or (b) I'm on to something worth pursuing. Only one way to find that out. ;) My plan was to try to produce something then demo that to a potential supervisor. There's a couple of professors from when I did my MSc, one in particular is a very nice person who'd probably be interested and at least give it a (healthily critical) hearing. Well, good people of HN you're welcome to reply and shoot down this approach or encourage it, whichever makes most sense. :)

Well, UK is not EU anymore.

Ba-dum tish!

New continent:

- Full time commitment seems critical to the process. A Ph.D is a time of intellectual exploration, and you can't really do that fighting work and family deadlines.

- On the other hand, time can be squished for older people by virtue of industry experience making them more efficient

- I'd be hesitant about remote, since so much of a Ph.D is learning from others. Hallway conversations are critical. That's possible remotely, but not common.

- Fully agreed about "side activities." Teaching is fine -- you learn A LOT from it -- but a lot of Ph.D programs give stupid administrative grunt work. The metaphorical cleaning of test tubes on a professor's project is a serious red flag.

No such thing as too old, but having a mortgage and family myself now, I definitely get much out of a Ph.D program right now.

I'll mention too: If I didn't have a Ph.D, I'm mature and disciplined enough now that I could learn the same without a formal program.

I am skeptical of new world "accelerated" programs, which often have little substance, and are designed to milk working professionals. It's like getting the piece of paper in Wizard of Oz.

> Full time commitment seems critical to the process. A Ph.D is a time of intellectual exploration, and you can't really do that fighting work and family deadlines.

This is BS. In every other field great strides have been made by individuals who balance a multitude of life requirements. Being able to devote every waking hour to something only results in burnout. And, I suppose, graduate students slave labor, which is the real reason for wanting 100% available graduate students in the program.

Agreed, this is just the stereotypical, American "hustle porn" boot-strapping mentality, mixed-up with a dash of Stockholm syndrome.

Source: European, have lived in the US since 6 years now.

Academia in the US has become a pyramid scheme where faculty lures bright, young, hard working students into doing their chores for poverty wages. It's not the faculty's fault, either; they're often overworked as well.

I don't know how anyone produces meaningful research in that environment anymore. It's untenable.

> I don't know how anyone produces meaningful research in that environment anymore. It's untenable.

By ignoring the system.

One of the biggest problems in academia is that students don't know their rights, and professors set the culture. It's a power problem. If students assert their rights -- and they have plenty of them -- they usually do okay. It's neigh impossible to fire a grad student for not doing slave labor, and it looks really, really bad for the professor.

Professors can advise students, but they have very little real power to control them, once students are in the program. The power dynamic comes mostly from a mutual belief in that power existing.

Do good research. Take interesting classes. Have fun. Explore. If your professor tells you to do menial labor, politely blow them off.

That's the deal 5-10x pay cut in return for that freedom. Make sure you get your part of the bargain.

Students need to pass their quals, and produce a good thesis.

That's it. Once you realize that, grad school gets a lot better.

And have a BATNA.

Straw man.

There's a gap a mile wide between Ph.D+family+work (which I described as a bad idea) and "Being able to devote every waking hour"

The whole point of graduate school is to have time for intellectual exploration -- reading papers, talking to students, traveling, taking interesting classes, and so on. Grad school was a wonderful time for me, but I can't imagine doing the same while having a deadline to ship a system next week at work or whatnot.

* Family+grad school is definitely okay, if you're independently wealthy or your spouse has a decent income.

* Grad school+work might be okay if the two align, and your thesis touches on your work. But other than that, I wouldn't recommend it.

* Grad school+work+family? That's a waste of your time. You'll get a slip of paper at the end,

But yes, grad student slave labor mentality is a problem, and if you're grad student slave labor, you are wasting your time too, and working for a fraction of your market value where all you get at the end is a paper.

A thesis advisor is an _advisor_, not a boss. I professors job is to _profess_, not to control. And grad school is _school_, which happens to give a stipend, not a job. If you're not using the time for intellectual explorations, you're doing it wrong.

In research 99+% of people did full time PHDs. It would be wrong to give someone advice assuming they are truly unique.

Yep, I agree 100%. Its just about full-time slave-ownership on disguise, you don't want to share your little slaves with any time sucker like family, hobbies, or whatever outside work they might enjoy... Better to have them full time working for nothin'. While our real professors just do nothin'

> I would be very suspicious that they will burden me with all kind of side activities (e.g. tutoring undergraduate students, handling bureaucracy, paper work, etc.) that are not really of any actual help towards the thesis.

What you're calling a "burden" is the stuff that (a) pays for the funding that covers tuition and living expenses and (b) provides experience that helps you to get a job when you're done. You don't need to burden yourself with those things if you pay everything yourself.

In my experience, some universities/programs still expect these ancillary duties even if you're self-funded. If I was a cynic, it would lead me to believe they are just trying to get cheap labor out of grad students.

Both of your examples are duties that an academic may have in the future. What about someone like the OP that just wants the PhD and continue their path in the industry?

Speaking anecdotally: the US research universities seem like research mills driven by low wage labor from international students. American students I met in my graduate program had to be both really smart or passionate and willing to put up with the demands of the PhD. It’s pretty bleak, and it’s good to hear that it’s different on the old continent.

> Things very quite significantly from country to country, but generally speaking in most EU you can do your PhD while working.

In physics? I don't think so. I did my PHD in Germany but we work in large international collaborations, so I meet s lot of phd students from other countries as well.

Doing a phd in physics is everywhere I know at least a full time job. Often, depending on topic, group, supervisor and yourself even more than a 40 hour week.

The complexity, depth and specialization required don't really allow for anything else.

So, every PhD position? I have looked at dozens and almost none don't require teaching, paper work, bureaucracy, organisational work, etc. done. I was even warned by one person that this weekend will be the first free weekend in months. Because of teaching, etc. I don't know how meaningful work can be done like this.

I'm sorry the hear that, and I think it's mostly worng.

I should add though that some activities are indeed useful, one of those is certainly teaching. If PhD students have full responsibility over the course, or part of the course, of which they're entrusted, it can be a very productive activity.

It is particularly formative if PhD students are entrusted with teaching activities covering subjects closely related to their thesis. In this way they can practice speaking over the things they are studying, which brings a ton of experience and positive growth.

On the contrary, if it's just teaching to cover hours that the professor to which the course is appointment is not willing to do, than it's much less attractive.

As a general rule, I'd suggest to a PhD student to be as selfish as possible. Although apparently counterintuitive, in their position it is a good rule of thumb to only engage in things that bring some tangible (but not necessarily immediate) utility. There are way too many professors willing to take advantage of younger positions for their own agenda. And that is also why it's very important who your thesis supervisor is.

Finally: never underestimate the "contractual power" that a PhD student has over a professor. Apart of few exceptions, professors need PhD students more than PhD students need professors. And in the case of those exceptions in which the professor is so well known and respected that there is a waiting list to be a PhD student, then I'd bet that it will also be so because such professor knows how to properly supervise PhD students.

>Apart of few exceptions, professors need PhD students more than PhD students need professors.

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not disagreeing, but colleges/professors certainly like to project the opposite in many cases

Professors depend on grant money and they need to push out papers to be competitive in grant applications. The vast, vast majority of work in research is done by grad students. Without students, professors would have to do everything themselves or compete with industry for talent they can't afford.

Students by contrast need professors for training and advice. Whether they receive these from their advisor depends on the lab. In bigger labs junior students learn more from senior students and post-docs than professors.

Just as an anecdote. I was in a doctoral program in engineering, and I mastered out into a 90k/yr job (this was in the early 2000s) writing cplex code to optimize supply chains. A buddy in the PhD program was doing nearly identical work for a 15k/yr stipend.

> I'm sorry the hear that, and I think it's mostly worng.

I think there is just a large variance between countries and/or fields. I've worked in CS/EE in three top EU universities, and in every case I've seen, PhD students working in a research group had a heavy load of both teaching and project work on top of their PhD research.

Yes, part-time PhD's are pretty common in Europe. They also commonly take 3-4 years instead of 6...

… if you already have a master’s degree, which takes 2 years. In the US many 5-6 year PhD programs do not require—and in fact include—a master’s degree.

This isn't the case in England. Most master's degrees are 1 year and a master's isn't a requirement for many PhD programmes. So it's possible to do your entire higher education, including a PhD, in 6 years (3 years of undergrad + 3 years full-time PhD).

This is true in principle, but in practice my experience is you have to have an extraordinarily good CV to get funding without a masters degree. Natural science bias in my friendship group though.

That said, a masters degree in the UK is much less of an undertaking than many other countries. Level of independent research in my "combined" masters (4 yr course, usually taken as 1st degree), pales in comparison to what colleagues in mainland Europe had to do.

Oh, that explains a lot. In France it's usually 3 years (180 ECTS) for a license (which is usually equivalent to a bachelor), 2 years (120 ECTS) for a master's degree and then usually 3 years for a PhD. At least in software, most people have a master's degree.

A masters is typically one year full time, two years part time.

Incorrect. In Europe a bachelors is either 3 or 4 years, and a masters is either 1 or 2 years. Full time. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/education/resources-and-tools/european-...

Of course, it is possible to do a 90 ECTS masters (1 year full time) for two years part time.

And it's possible to do a 180 ECTS masters (2 year full time) for four years part time.

A full year is 60 ECTS. 180 would be three years full time.

Which I find weird; are European/British PhDs generally considered less valuable than American? I didn’t think they were but there’s a lot I don’t know about this.

One major difference between UK and US undegraduate courses is that when you study undergraduate at a UK university, you _only_ do courses in your chosen course of study. No faffing about for a year or two picking a major, no time spent filling language requirements or taking interesting-sounding courses to scratch an itch. As a result, UK graduating undergraduates tend to have spent more time in their chosen field of study than US undergraduates have. It has plusses and minuses: I (UK grad) would have loved to have followed my diverse interests more; but on the flipside I do know more about my subject than my US equivalents. I have no proof but it's reasonable to think that would transfer to shorter PHD programs.

Germany's basically the same. I've lived here 20 years. I went to a liberal arts college in the US. Shortening the time to getting a PhD is the only argument I could make for the European system vs. a liberal arts system. German even has a word for people who are knowledgeable in their field and nothing else: "fachidiot" (literally field-idiot). Even aside from being a well-rounded individual, the number of times it's helped in my career that I had to take university-level general education classes is huge.

Even with my liberal arts background, and having worked in pretty mathy areas of industry, it's rare that I, say, have to use much from my last two years of CS education. (What they did prepare me for is getting to the point that I can read research papers in areas I've since worked in.)

To be clear: virtually everywhere in the US a CS curriculum takes 4 years. There's no deciding in year three and graduating on time. You could potentially switch to CS from engineering, math or physics and get close.

In Germany at least, in contrast to the US, there's no coursework in a PhD, which I believe is the main thing that makes a PhD shorter than, say, a US PhD directly after a bachelors degree (which is typical in the sciences).

> German even has a word for people who are knowledgeable in their field and nothing else: "fachidiot" (literally field-idiot).

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, English has the word "dragon" - doesn't mean dragons exist!

If I recall correctly, the exception is in Scotland, where the undergraduate programs tend to be more like America's: 4 years of study with emphasis on broad liberal arts education in secondary and higher education. I remember when applying for colleges in the U.S., our councilors noted that while it's virtually impossible for an American to apply as a full-time undergrad at English schools, particularly Oxbridge, due to incompatibilities in our educational systems, it's perfectly feasible to go from an American high school to a Scottish undergrad program (aside from the obvious travel and visa hurdles).

Not exactly sure about the UK specifically, but elsewhere in Europe you can absolutely take any course that the university offers - it just wont be accredited and you will gain 0 ECTS Points, which you need to collect in a timely manner to complete your degree.

Yes you generally can in the UK too, just ask the lecturer as a courtesy at least, if there's capacity they'll probably be pleased someone's keen, but might ask you don't submit any problem sheets or whatever for grading.

That's not what GP means though: in the first year in the US, generally speaking, undergraduates aren't enrolled on a particular programme; they take a range of courses from different faculties for credit, and decide which area to 'major in' (and perhaps additionally 'a minor') later.

It's the same in France as in the UK. I'd say 90% of my time in college was spent on things directly related to maths, computer science or software engineering. Sports was mandatory for the first 2 years and half too.

> I have no proof but it's reasonable to think that would transfer to shorter PHD programs.

I didn't enter one (regretfully) anywhere - but from what I recall when looking, US/Can typically have more of a taught element in preparation, included in the first year or two of the PhD programme.

Sort of like doing an MPhil or something followed by PhD I suppose, but built-in and I assume designed to counter the effect you describe.

This is actually one of the most honest takes on the UK/Europe vs US undergrad formats.

In Europe the Bachelor is already fully focused on a subject, and you have to get a Master degree before you can enter PhD programs.

In the US the Bachelor is much wider in scope and you can get the Master during the PhD program.

They make a sharper distinction of PhD being a post-Masters degree. In USA, I started the PhD program without a Masters, others started with me who had a Masters. We all took roughly the same amount of time to complete the PhD

It is the same with undergraduate study. In countries such as the UK or Australia, the majority of Bachelor's degrees take only 3 years, versus a standard 4 year minimum for the US. I get the impression that a lot of US-based hiring managers don't know about this, but even if they do, nobody really seems to care much anyway. Unless it is your very first job after university, what you did as an undergraduate rarely has much significance.

Anecdotal, but I never saw a hiring manager complaining about degrees from elsewhere. Even in cases where documentation was asked (a FAANG... and Immigration too) a diploma equivalence is enough.

Hiring managers, agree. Sourcing recruiters, not so sure. For the conveyor belt directly from college into FAANG internship and onwards, I expect you'll have an easier time at a big name.

Generally speaking, American PhD programs expect that you'll be spending at least a year (and generally two) on graduate-level courses before engaging in full-time research. European-style undergraduate degrees are much more focussed, with far fewer "gen-ed" requirements, and you're expected to pick up any extra background material en passant, alongside your thesis work.

It's a philosophical difference that doesn't mean a great deal practically. Often, European undergraduate programs are five years in length, although that's been changing as many European institutions now seem to be moving towards four-year programs. I'm not really sure what's driving that shift, but I think it's done partly in an effort to standardise what it means to have a "bachelor's degree" in terms of what employers can expect between Europe and North America, &cet.

The difference comes from the fact that smart Europeans graduate secondary school with the equivalent of an American university grad's education. U.S. universities must therefore offer more coursework in order to bring their postgrads up to snuff with what's expected of a fresh university grad in the rest of the developed world.

Having lived in Europe for almost twenty years, with a spouse teaching in a European secondary school, and with the utmost respect to my European colleagues, please allow me to assure you that this is not even remotely the case.

Having grown up in the USA, gone through the "second high school" USA university system, and heard reports from personal acquaintances and sites like this one on what levels of math German and Russian students graduate with, I'm still gonna press X to doubt the truth of your assurance, as earnest and well-meaning as it may be.

Why don't you move to Europe, and find out for yourself? I thought much the same as you, twenty years ago. Grass looks greener, etc., etc.

Only in the US/Canada. The stereotype is that they may be fine researchers but they don't have the breadth that comes of spending two years doing graduate level classes.

They may start out already more specialized as undergrads, or the programs are just managed better.

The biggest issue is the remote part, not the part-time part. I'm a professor, and myself and others in the dept. have remote, part-time PhD students. However, they have finished their coursework, which must be done in person for the most part. The coursework could be done part-time, though.

>which must be done in person for the most part.

I think COVID may have changed some of this paradigm for many schools

I've been looking into Graduate school for years and decided I won't go back in the US mostly likely and will head to Europe. Our system is designed to take advantage of PhD's as labor for the university system.

It's too extractive for what it's giving back.

One factor - I was under the impression that European PhD programs are much more dissertation focused, whereas US based ones are intensely coursework focused for the first few years. Is this the case?

I was in a US based PhD program (at Berkeley, mastered out), and I would attest to the heavy coursework load, but I've only heard that European/British programs are largely or purely dissertation based. Would enjoy hearing more about this from someone knowledgeable.

Not in the program yet (and very likely won't be), but with the people I've been chatting with at University of York, this definitely seems to be the case. The professors I've been talking to indicated that I would be hopping directly into research towards an end goal instead of spending a bunch of time in coursework.

They also seemed to assume a lot more knowledge about CS and math than most US grad schools do. Presumably you're just expected to enter with most of the knowledge required to research your dissertation. For my application, I had to write a 5-6 page proposal on what I wanted to research, and had to more-or-less defend the proposal during the admissions interview.

I'm not as familiar with the American PhD process, but my dad said for him (about 38 years ago, PhD in Aerospace at Notre Dame) it was more or less akin to the undergrad admission process: he took the GRE, sent a few transcripts, interviewed a few people, was accepted, and after about a year he decided what he wanted to focus on.

Yes, that is very different from what I experienced at Berkeley as well. There were some notable differences between my PhD application and undergrad, in that PhD admissions committees weren't really interested in the undergraduate dog and pony show of "tell me how your volunteer work and experience playing the flute in your high school orchestra shaped you as a person..." My personal statement was about what I intended to get out of a PhD program and a vague direction of possible future research interest. Interestingly, med and law school applications in the US are much more similar to the undergrad essay than PhD programs.

But still, even the PhD statement was nothing like the 5-6 page proposal with a clear research focus that you described. Sounds more like the kind of program I'd be interested in if I were to go back, as I'd be mainly interested in researching something deeply, not taking classes.

Well, good luck, hope it works out for you.

> I'm 30 right now,

   > You definitely aren’t too old

      > By "old" I didn't mean actual biological age exactly.

In my opinion, the replier was referring to your chronological age.

Sure but this is a distinction without a difference in this case. My choice of the word “old” wasn’t very good, as explained in the following sentence.

I see, sorry I didn't mean to be rude.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com