Hacker News Reader

Comment by melvinmt | Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

> 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.

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).

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com