PhD in the UK vs US

Hi everyone,

I have an opportunity to pursue a PhD as part of my job here in the UK. DH and I are planning on moving back to the US sometime in the future, and  I was just wondering if any of you have gotten PhD's in the UK and then moved to the US?

I have been told that the UK's PhDs are a bit more independent while the US ones are more "PhD programs," where you are taught in classes for parts of it. Do you know if they are held in the same regard (despite any differences in teaching style)?

Just wondering this stuff before making a decision. Any feedback is appreciated!

 

In medical sciences, a UK PhD is much, much 'easier'.  It is three years, there is no expectation to publish original data and judging from the quality of post-docs here where I work in the UK, the technical expectations  in general are much much lower and there is no proven ability to write. 

In north America, there is expectation to publish your own data, a PhD takes a minimum of 5-7 years and there is a much higher expectation of technical expertise.  We are noticing a huge difference in the quality of graduate coming out of the US v. UK. 

Hmm. Thanks for your input, Mrs.Pink.

My PhD wouldn't be in Medical Sciences, but I'm wondering if the US thinks of all UK PhDs in this way? I would hate to put in all this effort for the next 4 years to have it be looked on as "not equivalent" to a PhD in the US (hence my hesitation and still trying to make a decision as to what to do!) It is a big commitment. I suppose it would still be worth it, but I'm trying to figure out if it is a widely held belief about the two degrees (not just medical sciences)?

This is an interesting topic for me because I have applied to study for a PhD in the US instead of staying here in the UK to do it (I'm British).

I've always been under the impression that UK PhD's are considered slightly better than US ones because they involve 3 years of pure research rather than 2-4 semesters of classes first. There are no classes involved in a UK PhD because everything will have already been covered at undergraduate/masters level in the UK before the PhD even starts. Therefore the UK PhD appears to be 'easier' because all of the hard work that makes up a US PhD has already been done in the previous degree.

As an undergraduate I spend a year studying in the US and went straight from second year UK classes to US senior and PhD classes (at the age of 20) and even then some of the senior classes were repeats of what I'd studied the year before. However, part of the reason I am applying to the US is that my PhD will be in a different discipline to my first degree and the classes involved will cover material I haven't seen before and will enchance my research.

I don't know much about the medical sciences, but I am a scientist (in physics/geophysics) and even now as a masters degree student I am expected to get published at the end of the course.

It is also expected that a student will be published at least once during a PhD, as well as presenting their findings at International conferences, to the experts in the field. At least in my department, the opinion is that if you're not going to get published, there's no point in doing the research in the first place.

I would definitely consider a PhD in the UK because it will only take you a maximum of 4 years and I think perhaps some companies/universities may consider a UK PhD to be of a higher standard than a US one. Generally, the view seems to be that the UK PhD starts in the second/third year of the US one, therefore skipping the unecessary classes at the beginning and getting straight into research.

Thank you both for your views! ksand24, that is the way it was explained to me too at my university (obviously, they have a vested interest in me doing a PhD so its good to hear you agreeing with them!)

In a way I'm glad that there are 2 different opinions on this matter.  At the end of the day, the process will be what I make of it, and what I do with it at the end!

ksand24, best wishes with your PhD!

Less and less UK students are finishing their PhDs in 3 years. NERC is now funding for 3-1/2 and I expect it will extend to 4 sooner rather than later.

I think there is an expectation that you will publish while doing a UK PhD, but it is not as exptected as in the US. However, my husband is doing a UK PhD (geology/geography) and his lack of publishing (he has some, just not a lot) hurts him in the hunt for post-doc jobs in the US.

I can't speak to the expectation to write because my husband is an excellent writer so he doesn't get much criticism on this. He is also well versed technically, but given that many UK PhD students are so young, I could see where Mrs Pink is coming from.

My PhD is humanities based (UK) and as far as I am aware, they are well-regarded in the US.

I think that UK PhD students usually aim to finish in 3 years, but don't always manage it. However, it seems to be the actual writing up of the thesis that takes the extra time, rather than the research element. This is not helped by the course guidelines though - my masters is only 1 year long, but I am allowed an extra 2 years to write up and submit the thesis!

I think the problem regarding writing skills over here, especially in the sciences, is due to the fact that we've never been taught how to write essays and papers properly - or at least I haven't.

Because of the GCSE/A-level system here, most students stop taking English classes at 16 and specialise in other subjects (I took A-levels in Physics, Maths and Geography and have not taken an English class since 1999). The students taking A-level English study sentence structure and essay writing in school, but no one else seems to learn these skills.

In my 4 years at Exeter, I did not have to write a single essay or paper, except for my final dissertation (which was basically 30 pages of maths and only about 15 pages of actual writing) and was not given any guidance at all about how to write good papers. However, I have just had to write a research proposal for my masters and had to be reminded of the correct way to cite references, figures and equations along with paragraphs etc., because I've never had to do it properly before.

An example of how well (or not) proper English is taught here these days... until 4 weeks ago, when I was studying for the GRE exam, I could not tell you the difference between a verb, noun or an adjective - I don't ever remember being officially taught them in school!

Another thing we see, is that UK lacks a breadth of knowledge.  Bachelor's courses tend to be specific in the UK, whereas in the UK, it is a general education.  And the coursework in grad studies do have value. 

Another thing we see, is that UK lacks a breadth of knowledge.  Bachelor's courses tend to be specific in the UK, whereas in the UK, it is a general education.  And the coursework in grad studies do have value. 

That's true, but at the same time, I did take a couple of basic freshman classes in the states and they seemed to cover the same material that I studied during my GCSE's, or even earlier than that. If I had gone to that university right out of high school, I would have gone straight into 300 level classes (with maybe a couple at 200 level), in terms of the material covered compared to classes in the UK.

Bachelor's courses are so specific because we've basically done most of the general part in secondary school. I agree that A-levels don't always give broad enough knowledge, but when you consider that they are approximately equivalent to freshman/sophomore years of college, I don't think that the difference in eduation is that great, especially since some students take completely unrelated A-levels (i.e., they might study Physics, English Literature, French and Sociology together).

I found the senior classes very difficult in the US, because it seemed that the entire 3-year UK bachelors was squeezed into junior and senior years  - which means you have to do 3 years of British study in just 2 years!

I think the main difference is that the average US college student will have completed 12 years of education (13 years including Kindergarten) when they start college, but a UK student will usually have 14 years under their belt by the same age (I started school at age 4).

I had DH read over this thread last night and from someone who has been there, done that either as a student or teaching in 5 different schools in three countries, here is his advice. 

don't worry so much about the degree.  Do the minimum to get the degree.  Focus on the next step.  Do the maximum to get you to the next level.  If you focus on that, then where you do your degree isn't so important. 

Whatever the currency of your research is, focus on getting the maximum out of it.  In his field, it is publications so for him, doing quality research and publishing was of maximum importance.  And it got him a good post-doc.  And now that he has a position, to get higher positions, funding etc.. he absolutely must have a good publication record. 

As far as english..  in Canadian Universities, it is a requirement that ALL students, regardless of programme take an introductory English course.  And yes, essays are a part of that course.  In fact, at my alma mater, you have to take an English proficiency exam to GET INTO the University in the first place.  If you fail, your acceptance becomes provisional until you take an English course and pass the test.  There is a time limit on it. 

ALL academics need to be able to write to communicate their ideas.  Sadly, very few are able to write effectively.  The s**t that crosses my desk (I work for a scientific journal) is appalling.  I don't know about the science but the writing is atrocious.  Reading a well written article is a treat. 

My opinion on US vs UK is that it matters a heck of a lot less than who you are working for.  You are committing to spend 3-7 years (depending on country and field of study) producing research results for someone.  In the US, you can subtract one of the 4-7 years of the course for coursework, but the rest of the time they will be your boss and they will expect to have varying degrees of control over what you do.  You are getting a pedigree and you will be stuck with this person's name on your CV, next to your degree and dissertation title, for the rest of your life.  And while it will become less important as you progress in your field, it doesn't disappear. 

Make sure that they are well respected in their field.  Make sure that they are well respected by their colleagues.  Make sure that they are well respected by their students, post-docs, and lab techs.  Sure, everyone complains about their boss and their co-workers, but try to determine if it goes deeper than that before you make the big commitment.  Don't just go on your gut feel from the time you've spent with your potential adviser. 

I'm speaking from personal experience.  Most PhD programs seem to allow you to take as much or as little extra as you want.  But without a good adviser you're screwed. 

Carrie has a good point. DH has a supervisor well regarded academically, but he has a lousy reputation when it comes to having to work with him - whether as a supervisor or colleague. DH is already having to work hard to distance himself from the less appealing aspects of his supervisor's reputation!

In medical sciences, a UK PhD is much, much 'easier'.  It is three years, there is no expectation to publish original data and judging from the quality of post-docs here where I work in the UK, the technical expectations  in general are much much lower and there is no proven ability to write. 

In north America, there is expectation to publish your own data, a PhD takes a minimum of 5-7 years and there is a much higher expectation of technical expertise.  We are noticing a huge difference in the quality of graduate coming out of the US v. UK. 

Many of my colleagues are European...I can't say how much, if any, "easier" or "harder" a European PhD program may be compared to a US PhD program because everyone's experiences and perceptions vary so much, and I know what I went through, but these people have told me that the level of independence expected from them here at the post-doc level was quite a shock.  Some of my friends didn't survive in the environment, others adjusted well.  As one friend of mine put it, she said she was able to coast through her PhD pretty well, but when she arrived at her lab in America she felt that "no one gave a s**t!"  Defintely at the R1 institutions here in the US, autonomy is a huge part of the academic research culture and pressure after you pass your PhD qualifiying exams (and beyond) is intense.

I think a friend of mine who received a PhD in the UK did do a bit of didactic coursework during the time to the degree, but I don't recall it being the solid 2+ years I had.  I kind of liked the didactic work...my degree is extremely specialized and many of the topics we had to learn were not covered in upper level undergraduate or even master's level courses, and the classes were taught in a seminar-like format, discussion-based.  A big part of me wants to do a fellowship abroad next, even if it's only for a year.  I'm considering staying in academics and I think such an experience would enrich my professional development no matter which side of the pond I live and work!

I had an interesting conversation today and just wanted to add it to this thread for future reference. 

I was speaking with a professor who is a senior member of his department (I work in a University).  He happens to be an American citizen and was educated there, but has been here a long time.  He told me that he tries not to take on PhD students anymore - he's reached the point in his career where he doesn't need students to keep his job.  His reason?  "To put it bluntly, the quality of students in the UK is just much, much lower than the quality of students in the US."  Eeeek! 

There is a qualifier to this statement.  He is in a theoretical field, and his primary complaint was that there was no bridging the low level (undergraduate) courses with the skills that are expected of post-graduate (PhD) researchers.  In his field, he feels that the course work conducted in the first year of a US PhD programme is imperative.  Specifically, he does not feel that students come to the PhD programme with the theoretical and computational background required to flourish as researchers.  The one PhD student he has now is struggling. 

Just something to bear in mind when deciding where to do your work.  Think about how necessary that 1st year coursework will be in preparing you for the research you will be conducting.  It is probably a lot more important in theoretical fields than in applied research, but part of the answer to this question is really subjective.

DH is finding the EXACT SAME THING!!!

He is supervising a student at the minute (master's) who has absolutely no technical proficiency at all - even trivial calculations.  In fact, I know more technical proficiency just from my high school chemistry.  He has had to start from square one with him.

And this kid wants to do a phD.  How the hell can he do a PhD if he can't even do basic technical procedures. 

this is also not a unique situation.  There are tons of students out there just like him.