-
Asked by 06mantizibat to Laura, Sarah, Paul, Mark, Lily on 23 Jun 2010 in Categories: Scientist. This question was also asked by bossofslang, khan.
Question: how long did it take you to get your PHD??
-
Laura Maliszewski answered on 12 Jun 2010:
I started in September 2001 (just out of Uni) and finished in December 2008. The US system is a little different, and this program in particular takes a while. We have a year and a half of classes and rotations (like a short residency in a lab to see if you like it) before qualifying exams. 5-7 years is pretty average for a US PhD in bioscience.
I ended up trying to prove something *doesn’t* exist which is way harder than proving something *does* exist.
-
-
Mark Roberts answered on 15 Jun 2010:
It took me 4 years to get my pHd which is the norm now for people doing pHd’s in the life sciences
-
Sarah Bardsley answered on 15 Jun 2010:
I don’t have a PhD. But I do quite like the sound of being called Doctor….
-
Lily Asquith answered on 15 Jun 2010:
It took me four years. Some people do it in three, but most people take four. For the first year I didn’t really know what I was doing 🙂
-
Paul Roche answered on 23 Jun 2010:
Almost 3.5 years in total, after 3 years of my first (BSc) degree. 3-4 years is typical in the UK, most countries give you a lot longer to do your work, which is probably a much better system. 3 years is not long enough really, I would have preferred more like 4-5 years.
Comments
Paul commented on :
As Laura says, the UK system is quite different to the UK system – here we typically get funding for only 3 years of study, although 4 years is now becoming more common. Most of the rest of the world allows 5 years or more for a PhD, but in the UK you can do a 3 or 4 year first degree (BSc then a 1 year extension or new degree to get a Masters) followed by a 3-4 year PhD. I went straight from school to uni (3 years for BSc), then did my PhD in just under 3.5 years, so I was 25 when I got my PhD – most of my friends in the US and Europe got their PhDs when they were about 28, so it is a bit odd that in the UK we get our PhDs so much earlier.
I spent 3.5 years investigating 1 star…
To be honest, 3-4 years isn’t really enough time – you are really just getting into your subject after 3 years, and in the UK you then have to start writing up your thesis (basically a huge indepent project – maybe 200+ pages in many cases?). I think the US/European system is better, as you have longer to develop your knowledge and expertise, and it’s not a crazy rush to get what you’ve done in the first 2-3 years written up and submitted so that you can get a job and start earning money!
Paul commented on :
(Sorry, I meant the UK system is quite differnt to the US system)
Mark commented on :
For me it took 4 years to get my pHD which is now the norm for bioscience in the UK.
06mantizibat commented on :
wooow! i suppose you have to be really dedicated to work to spend all that time studying one subject!
Paul commented on :
You’re right – being interested in the subject is really vital if you are going to spend 3 or 4 years working on one little aspect of it.
I started off as a geologist, and got more interested in astronomy as I went through university – I was lucky enough to get the chance to go on and do a PhD, but if I’m honest, what I studied was about 3rd or 4th choice on my list of “stuff I’d lik eto study for a PhD” – but with an interesting subject and a good supervisor, it’s a great way to spend 3-4 years and become an expert in something.
Laura commented on :
Yes, but once you get into it, it’s not that hard, there’s so much we don’t know!
I really had three projects over that time, all different ways of looking at a question. It’s really pretty nice to know you have some time to relax into a topic and design a thoughtful experimental plan. Besides, it gives you a net for when things go wrong, you can stop and thing before starting over!
Mark commented on :
Yup but is it really rewarding and the pHd is a chance you get to ask questions you want to ask!
And there are loads of questions out there waiting to be answered
abster commented on :
As a scientist; are you ‘self employed’ or is there a scheme of authority?
Paul commented on :
Hi abster – we do have to work “for” somebody, but often you are in charge of your own research. I work in a university, so my boss is the Head of Physics at Cardiff University – but day-to-day, I run my own projects, control my grants and have a team of people that work for me. So I am their boss, but they do a lot of their own work – I just keep an eye on things and pay the bills!
So there is a scheme of authority, but you often get a lot of personal freedom, which is one of the things that I love about being a scientist. As long as I do my teaching and don’t slack off too much, I can pretty much do what I like, when
Paul commented on :
…I like.
I used to work for an ex-Google multi-millionairre, and that was great – he was amazingly “hands off”, so I was in charge of a big project and could basically do what I thought was best, and he trusted me to do that. It was great fun.
Mark commented on :
Sort of self employed – I have a boss who is the head of my lab but I do my work work and work on my own projects and also look after a number of the students in the lab helping them make progress with their work.
So there is a boss and I am expected to get work done, but have the freedom to do my work and also to follow up a result if I think it’s interesting