Work or Study (PhD)..Suggestions thoughts Opinions..and more

In my case i would be following what i think is good, ie Master work PhD, (just in case someones been following to know what i'm going to do, i haven't committed to doing the PhD, but could do it).  I started this thread to gauge how people view others doing PhD's later in life, seems the response has been largely positive.

What path people choose to take, depends on lots of factors, not just academic ability. Perhaps it would be ideal to do Bachelor, Masters and Finally PhD, then work, as opposed to Bachelor, Master, work and PhD. Its not just the academic brilliance, that contributes to the decision you make, its also lots of other factors too. Those who get to follow the ideal scenario, are usually the lucky ones. Circumstances as well as situations in life also plays a big role, just as does academic brilliance.

This discussion should help others who come along on this path. Good luck with whatever decisions you may reach when you get to this juncture, and hope this thread would help you in making those decisions.

Since this is a fairly important decision, i'd suggest that more people add their experiences on here, also highlighting the field they are into. Just as Bmore_2_uk, Ksand24, Elynor, have done.

Don't see that my own experience adds much more to what's already been said, but after my BA I took several years away from academia because I didn't have any desire to continue to a higher degree.  Found an interesting research topic, did a part-time master's by distance learning in that field, then committed to the PhD.  I'm now Dr. PtC. 

The secondary consideration was that I'd been living on and off in Europe since I was 19 and was really trying hard to get here.  So I also had a parallel goal of becoming a UK resident - which I also am now. 

I never considered doing the PhD in the states - in addition to the 'living in the UK' thing, I needed archival sources in the UK.

So that's my experience. 

I'm in a similar position D. I'd love to start my PhD, but I've decided to wait another 2 years (when I will be in my 30's) because I'll be a BC by then and will get a boat load more funding in my area of study. That's what tipped the scales for me.

Thought I would chime in...My undergrad is a BBA in Quatitative Management Science (Basically statistics) and International Marketing.  I then took a short break and accepted a job in another city and then went for my Masters.  My MBA is in Finance and Marketing.  I have 12 years job experience now.  

I had an offer to go straight for my PhD (5 years of study) after graduating with my BBA, but chose to take the job in another city...I don't have regrets, but I do wonder what would have become if I took up that offer.  

I always knew that I would return to school to get my PhD, but not certain I want to get it in Stats, Finance or Marketing.  I am now thinking of going back to school in the next few years and changing my course of study altogether, which will most likely mean I will go for another Bachelor or possibly a Masters.  Nothing will be decided until I am finally moved over to the UK, but I have been looking into it.

Edited to add:  I am in my late 30's and may be close to 40 by the time I pursue my next degree.

There seems to be a lot of advice that waiting does not matter. In general, I think this advice is is wrong. For some people it may not matter, but for others it will. As a lecturer at a Russell group uni (sciences) I hold a gap of more than a year (especially for work in another field) against the canadiate. Further, and you can hate me for this, even though I cannot legally hold raising a family against the canadiate, I do. I am not unique in this regard. Taking time off will make it more difficult to get a studentship.

You might be asking why do I hold time off against students. I advise PhD students because I enjoying teaching and because in some cases they are a valuable assest for me. Studentships are highly competitive so I have the luxury of chosing the students that I believe will provide me with the most value. The odds that a student can provide good value are low. The odds are even worse, probably because of people like me, for students who have taken time off.

There seems to be a lot of advice that waiting does not matter. In general, I think this advice is is wrong. For some people it may not matter, but for others it will. As a lecturer at a Russell group uni (sciences) I hold a gap of more than a year (especially for work in another field) against the canadiate. Further, and you can hate me for this, even though I cannot legally hold raising a family against the canadiate, I do. I am not unique in this regard. Taking time off will make it more difficult to get a studentship.

You might be asking why do I hold time off against students. I advise PhD students because I enjoying teaching and because in some cases they are a valuable assest for me. Studentships are highly competitive so I have the luxury of chosing the students that I believe will provide me with the most value. The odds that a student can provide good value are low. The odds are even worse, probably because of people like me, for students who have taken time off.

Sorry, but you are saying the odds of a student providing good value to you is low 'because of people like you'?? How can you rate another persons potential for success based on your own prejudices??

I appreciate that you have been honest about how you select your students, but it is this old school way of thinking that makes my blood boil. It's a shame really, because you're passing up a lot of great candidates. I can assure you that the selection process for the research council I worked for did not take any gaps into account and it was purely based on academic achievement, quality of the research proposed, and best institutional fit for the student's research.

There are aspects of the system that are broken and need fixing. Advisors choosing students who are going to be most valuable to them, is not one of the problems in my mind. Although I said that it was because of people like me that students with gaps will likely have problems, it is a little harsh. I think it would still be hard for students with gaps to meet my definition of value (being a sucessful academic at a research institution), even if the gap was never held against them. Median age of an academic obtaining his first NIH R01 grant (I am most familar with the system in the States) is 40.  With a five year gap and retirement at 65, their is 20 percent less time to be productive. A 20% difference in research output is huge. Factor in that more productivity later in the career and the difference gets even larger. This analysis is likely wrong and that is why I say it is because of people like me (who base their decisons on faulty logic) that it will be difficult to succeed.

Although there are advisors who do not hold gaps against students, there are those that do. The presence of these people will make it harder.

At least in the humanities, one does truly begin to do "really good" research until one is older. In that case, an older student is not trailing behind the younger ones, especially if the younger ones are still intellectually immature (which they are until early to mid 30s)...and I say that as a "younger" student. It depends on a lot of factors and any kind of sweeping generalisation will be off/wrong to some crowd.

I went from undergrad straight to my MA, and I had graduate classes both with others who did the same and with mature students, some of whom had more than 20 years away from the classroom.  Unquestionably the mature students were harder working and had more to offer the discussions as they were able to draw from their wider and deeper experiences.  Young students may be sharp but they are often callow.  However, this was in humanities, and I gather that beeper is talking about natural sciences.  The environments are clearly completely different.  No humanities, languages, social sciences or information sciences professor that I have ever met (and I studied in all those fields) would dream of holding "gaps" against anyone, and actually encourage people to return to school at any age. 

There are aspects of the system that are broken and need fixing. Advisors choosing students who are going to be most valuable to them, is not one of the problems in my mind. Although I said that it was because of people like me that students with gaps will likely have problems, it is a little harsh. I think it would still be hard for students with gaps to meet my definition of value (being a sucessful academic at a research institution), even if the gap was never held against them. Median age of an academic obtaining his first NIH R01 grant (I am most familar with the system in the States) is 40.  With a five year gap and retirement at 65, their is 20 percent less time to be productive. A 20% difference in research output is huge. Factor in that more productivity later in the career and the difference gets even larger. This analysis is likely wrong and that is why I say it is because of people like me (who base their decisons on faulty logic) that it will be difficult to succeed.

Although there are advisors who do not hold gaps against students, there are those that do. The presence of these people will make it harder.

You're assuming that all of your students will get academic positions, which in this day and age, is most likely not going to happen. There is a higher probability that they will find work in the private sector.

You're assuming that all of your students will get academic positions, which in this day and age, is most likely not going to happen. There is a higher probability that they will find work in the private sector.

No, I am not assuming that students will get academic posts. In fact, I am assuming that most won't. What I am saying is that a student who does not get an academic post provides me, as an advisor, with almost no value. For many students there is value in getting a PhD even if it does not lead to an academic post. As an academic (a young one at that), I cannot afford those types of students.

At least in the humanities, one does truly begin to do "really good" research until one is older. In that case, an older student is not trailing behind the younger ones, especially if the younger ones are still intellectually immature (which they are until early to mid 30s)...and I say that as a "younger" student. It depends on a lot of factors and any kind of sweeping generalisation will be off/wrong to some crowd.

The question to me is does intellectual maturity come from age or number of years in the field. I lean towards years in the field.

You also have to factor in whether the gap is due to WORKING in their field.  I, for instance, am an archaeologist.  There are some who do BA ->PhD with no gaps, but they're not  usually up to the task.  You can't write a good MA dissertation, much less a PhD, without adequate practical field experience.  My undergrad advisor (who was also in charge of grad admissions) explained that one to me and advised me to get a good few years under my belt before heading back into academia, my natural home.  So I will have 5 years' field experience by the time I do my MSc/PhD (back-to-back). 

As far as the rest of the background, I started my BA at 16 and didn't finish it until I was 25, due to taking time out to get married and move to the UK!  My husband is also an archaeologist and will be doing his PhD at the same time as me.  We have one child, and will possibly have another while doing grad study.  Thank goodness for on-campus childcare!!

For many students there is value in getting a PhD even if it does not lead to an academic post. As an academic (a young one at that), I cannot afford those types of students.

Why not? I suppose it depends on the field, but I would think that those types of students could be beneficial to you/to your field in the long run. I have just found a PhD project I am really interested in, but at the end of the day I'm not sure if I'd want to go into academics afterwards. However, I would be aiming to get a job with an organisation that requires a PhD and that works closely with academics, provides academics with data/funding/resources and I think even publishes academic papers in big name science journals.  Would you refuse to take me on because I didn't necessarily want to be an academic, even though I could potentially later on provide you with invaluable data and information that could aid your research?

Also, what about the students who don't know if they want to go into academics at the end or not? Would you not even give them the chance to explore their potential? There could be a student that you refused a PhD place to because they didn't want to get an academic post, who then went on to get a PhD with another supervisor, changed their mind and decided to go into academics and then became one of the biggest names in the field!

I'm guessing that I'm exactly the type of student you would want to refuse a place to - I took a year out between my undergrad and postgrad degrees, I have taken another 2 years out so far and at the moment I am debating whether to apply for the PhD project I've found (starting this October) or whether to just take whatever job I can find, even if it's not in my field. I'm not sure whether I should do a PhD at the moment (bad experience with starting a PhD in the US last year) and I have no idea whether I will want to get an academic post in the future. However, that shouldn't take away from my academic history (two masters-level degrees), my ability to do good research and my interest in the project.

No, I am not assuming that students will get academic posts. In fact, I am assuming that most won't. What I am saying is that a student who does not get an academic post provides me, as an advisor, with almost no value. For many students there is value in getting a PhD even if it does not lead to an academic post. As an academic (a young one at that), I cannot afford those types of students.

Why do you say that the students who do not get an academic post are of little to no value to you as a supervisor? That's a bit harsh considering that regardless of where one ends up after the degree, every PhD student is still a PhD student. Are you saying that you don't care for their research interests (which is a different discussion altogether)?

The question to me is does intellectual maturity come from age or number of years in the field. I lean towards years in the field.

The older students I've seen reach that level of maturity a lot faster than the younger ones, so I'd lean towards the age as the primary factor. Case in point: Nietzsche. One of my primary research interests is Nietzsche's philosophical systems. However, the popular reading of Nietzsche, thanks to angsty teens and ignorance, is very different from what I read as one with understanding of Kant, Plato, etc. My years of experience in the field is minimal (e.g., I haven't published anything yet), but my reading is very different compared to the popular reading, which is sometimes even echoed in academic circles. I can challenge my colleagues' understanding in a reasonable discussion, but I can't convince a person who's so young he still thinks he knows everything.
I get the feeling that you are coming from the natural sciences (if not, then this won't apply). In some ways you don't get this kind of challenge because the "deep theory" stuff is saved until later in the academic career. An undergrad in Physics can dabble in quantum physics and learn some of the mechanics, but the actual theoretical legwork behind it is saved until later. I'd wager that there are few people coming in as undergrads who have (or claim to have) a keen understanding of the dynamics of XY theory that will prove to be valuable. They come in knowing what they've learned from previous education (say, equations and applications of Newtonian mechanics like F=ma), but that's about it. They don't understand the theory that gets the equation; they don't understand the differences in scientific frameworks (they surely haven't read Kuhn at that level), etc. In that progression, I can see the usefulness for going straight through the academic marathon right away as a student who does take time between degrees will not have the same kind of momentum.

No, I am not assuming that students will get academic posts. In fact, I am assuming that most won't. What I am saying is that a student who does not get an academic post provides me, as an advisor, with almost no value. For many students there is value in getting a PhD even if it does not lead to an academic post. As an academic (a young one at that), I cannot afford those types of students.

I'm still not clear why you can't afford to advise a student who will not get an academic post and how can you tell this in the application stage of their studentship. Pretty much every one of the postdocs I knew at my old job believed they would get an academic post when they finished their PhD (and would have said this in their interview). Offhand I can think of 2 who actually did. The rest are all in private industry or government positions (and all are quite successful). Would you be disappointed about this if you were their advisor?