The layman's guide to a Ph.D. (or D.Phil.)
Having gone through four and a half years to get this qualification (which was meant to be three), I can safely say I've been through it in more ways than one. One of the things I've encountered a lot is a misunderstanding of what a Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy - alternatively referred to as a D.Phil.) is - it does not mean I treat people's illnesses, nor is it just another degree like a B.Sc. or B.A. Also, I've found that a lot of people asked me about doing a Ph.D. once I finished it. So to avoid having to retype or say the same thing over and over again, and to give people a more straightforward guide (without the crap), I put together this web page as to what a Ph.D. is to help.
This page is written with the following in mind:
people considering doing a Ph.D., to tell them exactly what they are letting themselves in for; and
the average non-academic to help understand what exactly a Ph.D. is (that is people who know someone who's got one of these qualifications or considering doing one).
So, here goes...
...my own Ph.D. for the record is entitled "Compacted Oxide Layer Formation under Conditions of Limited Debris Retention at the Wear Interface during High Temperature Sliding Wear of Superalloys" (yes, I know it sounds boring - and when I look at it now, it is!!!). For what that actually means, click on the "My Ph.D. - what's it all about?" link.
For a more fun way of looking at the stresses and frustrations faced by a Ph.D. candidate, there's always the 'Ph.D. Game' (PDF - a slightly expanded version of that on the Cambridge University website). Don't take it too seriously and don't let it put you off - it doesn't get quite that bad. Also, a couple of the entries are tongue in cheek and not based on real events!!!
The best way to answer this is in the form of "most commonly asked questions", as asked by either non-academics or people interested in doing a Ph.D. - click on the appropriate link (clicking [BACK] will bring you back here)...
1) So what is a Ph.D. or D.Phil.? Can you explain in simple terms?
5) At the end, you get you're Ph.D. or you don't - at least that's straight forward?
6) So what qualifications do you have to have to be able to do a Ph.D.?
7) You mentioned 'funding' - what do you mean by this? Where can I get this?
8) So you've done a Ph.D.? Would you recommend it?
11) Are there any books or literature I can read to understand better what's involved?
Also: A final note of warning...
1) So what is a Ph.D. or D.Phil.? Can you explain in simple terms?
'Ph.D.' (sometimes written as 'D.Phil.' instead) means 'Doctor of Philosophy' - there is no easy explanation, but I'll try to be as straight forward as possible. A Ph.D. is:
Normally the highest grade academic qualification that can be conferred on a person (though in some countries you can only become a Professor by exam - i.e. Poland - meaning for example, Poles can go further). If these academic qualifications are set up as a little league table, then you get something like (older qualifications included):
Ph.D. / D.Phil. (Doctor of Philosophy)
M.Phil (Master of Philosophy) / M.Sc. (Master of Science) / M.A. (Master of Arts) / M. Eng. (Master of Engineering) / M.B.A. (Master of Business Administration)
B.Sc. (Batchelor of Science) / B.A. (Batchelor of Arts) / B. Eng. (Batchelor of Engineering)
H.N.D. (Higher National Diploma) / H.N.C. (Higher National Certificate)
O.N.D. (Ordinary National Diploma) / O.N.C. (Ordinary National Certificate) / University Entry (e.g. 'A' Level)
Higher G.C.S.E. / 'O' Level
Lower G.C.S.E. / C.S.E.
It is conferred on a person after a successful programme of research lasting normally three to five years, that makes a significant original contribution to knowledge in a given subject or field - in plain English, if your research comes up with something new, you get a Ph.D.
The key results are then put into a thesis, which has to be successfully defended during oral examination (normally known as a viva) by other academics before you are awarded the Ph.D.
If you see 'D.Phil.' instead of 'Ph.D.', they are generally the same thing these days, with 'D.Phil.' being the Anglicised form of the Latin 'Ph.D.'
[BACK]
2) Look, I'm not an academic - I thought it was another degree where you went to lectures and sat written exams like all other University qualifications.
3) You get a Ph.D. and call yourself a doctor. To me a doctor is some who treats patients - either you're a doctor or not a doctor - why do you call yourself a doctor if you can't treat patients? Surely this is misleading and dangerous.
Trying to explain what a Ph.D. or Doctor of Philosophy is to a non-academic can be difficult. These are the two most common misconceptions:
It is not another degree where you sit exams and have lectures. Unless there are weaknesses in a candidates knowledge or (very rarely) a requirement for a taught component, there are no lectures and only two exams. These exams consist of a mid-point / transfer exam and the main exam at the end called a viva - both are oral (not written) and as you are defending your work, there are no pre-set questions.
A Ph.D. doctor cannot treat stomach aches or bad heads. Medical doctors have the initials M.D. after their name to make it clear they are 'Medical Doctors'. Trying to explain you are not a medical doctor can cause a lot of confusion and even anger if someone is in trouble. For this reason, some people don't use the title 'Dr.' and instead stick 'Ph.D.' after their name instead (which is professionally what I'm opting to). A Ph.D. does NOT mean 'able to treat medical conditions'.
[BACK]
4) So what's involved in a Ph.D? Why do they take so long - I hear of some people taking years to do one?
There are number of main components to a Ph.D. and none of it is easy:
The rational - as I've already said, a Ph.D. has to be an original piece of work. Thus before it can start, it must be shown that the research is likely to come up with something new. This is decided normally between yourself, your primary supervisor (an academic expert in the field) and one or more secondary supervisors (some may be academics, some may even work in the real world). A good rational may determine whether or not you get funding.
The literature review - this involves trawling through what can amount to several hundred academic papers (though in practice most areas are so specific, that the number of relevant papers produced by researchers may amount to no more than 100 to 150 papers) to:
bring your background knowledge up to scratch,
ensure you don't repeat work already done before and to direct your own research so that it continues to be original,
keep up to date with what else is going on in your field of research.
This is regarded as the most boring part of a Ph.D. and is extremely tedious to do, no matter how into a subject you are.
The research - this can be laboratory work (experimental), field work (anything from going down caves, watching animals, working in factories or any number of things - even sitting in pubs to study the effects of drinking on people!!!), surveys or anything that allows data collection. The mid-point exam assesses whether or not it is worthwhile continuing the research (normally a brief report plus oral exam), more often than not a formality.
The thesis - all the data is processed and this plus your findings are put into a document known as a thesis. This is composed of the following:
an abstract, which summarises your thesis in no more than (ideally) one page,
an introduction to the purpose of the thesis,
a written literature review, that assesses and (constructively) criticises the work of other researchers,
a brief introduction to the work you specifically are doing,
your methods or methodology,
your key data or results NOT including discussion - in this section, only the results are reported,
your interpretation of these results - the discussion,
a summary or conclusion, briefly outlining the key points of your work,
what further work you recommend for continued original study,
a list of references for all the papers you referred to during the literature review,
there may also be appendices for other data or results you have collected, and
some people also bind into the thesis any academic papers they've had published at the very end.
What seems a relatively straight forward exercise normally turns into the most time consuming part of the Ph.D. and the thesis can take anything from a few months to a few years to write. Supervisors will normally ask for several changes and may continue to do so until they think the document is competent enough (good enough) to pass with at most minor corrections. This can be infuriating and for me meant of period of two years where more often than not I was working for twelve to sixteen hours each day (a serious amount of work had to be put in to get it right).
The size of a thesis can be highly variable, from as little as 100 pages through a more normal 200 to 300 pages right up to extremes of 900+ pages if there's lots of research data. That's why some of them take so long to write - mine was 366 pages. There is a tendency to keep them short and succinct now (saying in them only what needs to be said), but the odd marathon effort does still get submitted.
The oral exam (or viva) - here you are critically examined by two (occasionally three) examiners, an internal examiner from within your own university or institution and an external examiner from an outside university or institution and you must defend your work under questioning from them. Be aware here that you can be questioned on anything you should know and it is common to be asked questions on subjects not covered in the thesis (and it is common for candidates not to be able to answer questions under these circumstances - this is not normally held against them). You make also be asked about the contents of any academic papers that you have your name on.
[BACK]
5) At the end, you get you're Ph.D. or you don't - at least that's straight forward?
Wrong, there can be a number of outcomes depending on the examiners decision after the final oral exam. These normally include:
a straight forward pass (the thesis and exam were error free) - this almost never happens;
minor corrections, where the thesis has a few typing mistakes - this is the most common outcome and the candidate is asked to resubmit with errors corrected without any further examination (that's what happened to me) - the request for corrections is a token gesture by the examiners, to show they've had a good look at your work;
major corrections - this can involve a significant degree of rewriting;
major corrections with re-examination probably six months or a year later;
downgrade to M.Phil - the work was not original enough to justify a Ph.D and an M.Phil (Master of Philosophy - with possible corrections) is awarded instead - a Master of Philosophy is a lesser research degree not requiring the same degree of original or new work (though people originally doing an M.Phil can also be upgraded to a Ph.D. if the level of new findings warrants this); or
the candidate fails because they've completely messed up - this is very rare as most supervisors would not allow examination to go ahead without being sure their candidate would pass (as said before, with no more than minor corrections) - also, clearly failing candidates generally either withdraw or downgrade to MPhil.
[BACK]
6) So what qualifications do you have to have to be able to do a Ph.D.?
This varies from country to country, however, a normal level of qualification required is (assuming a scale where you need 3 points):
A first class or second class (first division) degree (1 or 2(i)) - for example, a B.Sc., B.A. or B.Eng. - this can be viewed as 4 points (for a first class degree) or 3 points (for a second class - first division degree) on the scale.
A second class, second division degree (2(ii)) may be accepted, but funding may be difficult to obtain - this can be viewed as 2 points on the scale. A masters (M.Sc., M.A. or M.Eng.) will help here - a masters will lift you up to 2(i) level, moving you up from 2 to 3 points.
A third class degree (3) is not normally enough (only 1 point) - a masters is definitely needed and a masters is extremely difficult to get onto with a third class degree.
But all is not lost. Relevant industrial experience can also give you a leg-up, with two years experience giving you 1 extra point and five years experience giving you 2 extra points. This allows for a rarer route via HND + 5 years relevant industrial experience (which you'll need to get on the Masters without a degree) + Masters (M.Phil. or M.Sc.), giving you 3 points without the need for a B.Sc. (Hons) or equivalent.
[BACK]
7) You mentioned 'funding' - what do you mean by this? Where can I get this?
The University or Institution should sort funding out for you (though not always - this issue has to be pushed sometimes). This is a bursary, part of which covers your University fees and part of which gives you a living allowance. This can be sourced from:
Research councils - for example in Britain, the 'Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council' (which I got),
Businesses and industrial organisations who have a direct interest in the research,
The University or Institution itself,
Other organisations (medical, arts, etc.) or even individuals,
Self-funding - you come up with your own fees and living costs (for which you have to be extremely well off), or
Any combination of the above.
[BACK]
8) So you've done a Ph.D.? Would you recommend it?
There is no easy answer to this - this is a personal decision and you can only decide for yourself. However, be aware of the following:
What looks like at the beginning as a straight forward three year research project can drag on for five or more years, due to delays for rewriting (the main delay people will face), trying to get examiners to actually look at your work and even having to find new supervisors because for some reason one has to drop out - see question 4) for more information as to what's involved. I took four and a half years.
If you really want your Ph.D., you'll have to put the hours in - as I've said elsewhere, I ended up doing twelve to sixteen hour days during the last two years (the writing up phase at the end).
This can have a dramatic effect on friendships and relationships as you simply won't be there for people - you may find people who you considered close friends drift away and leave you out of things as time goes on (you either can't do parties or go out with them or because the Ph.D. dominates your life, you can talk about nothing else and you're regarded as being a bit boring).
As for wives/husbands and boyfriends/girlfriends, well, I hope they're understanding - because you do disappear into your own little world. Divorces and break-ups for Ph.D. candidates are very high (those that give up their Ph.D. to save their relationships can find the damage is already done). You emerge from the other end to find that other people you knew have moved on with their lives, started families, moved away, etc. and some people find they have to start all over again (to a certain extent, that's how I felt). In plain English, it is easy to come to the conclusion that a Ph.D. is a single man's or woman's game.
As for employment prospects, whether a Ph.D. is a good or a bad thing depends on your point of view. If you envisage a life in the real world afterwards (i.e. industry or other posts outside academia), then be aware than some employers actually regard a Ph.D. as a disadvantage - you've become highly specialised due to your focus on a very narrow field for the time you've been doing your Ph.D. and may not have gained many general, practical skills that they look for. There is also a concern that Ph.D. graduates develop an attitude that is aloof compared to other potential employees. In simple terms, you end up being labelled an 'academic'. Only with a few research oriented jobs within some larger companies or in specialist organisations (or you've had a company sponsoring you) is a Ph.D. an advantage and thus a way out of academia. If you see your future in academic research or lecturing, then yes, a Ph.D. can be a help (though not necessary essential).
My own feelings, having done both masters and Ph.D., are that (and many academics won't like this), are that a good highly technical one-year masters degree is much better than a Ph.D. and even better is one that offers a work placement. Unlike a Ph.D., the right masters will enhance your job prospects far more than any Ph.D. Also, friendships and relationships are more likely to survive a one year fixed length course than an indefinite slog on a Ph.D. lasting 3, 4, 5 or more years.
It's not all negative, however, the pluses don't exactly sell a Ph.D. to the prospective candidate. You come out of a Ph.D. with a massive sense of personal achievement, though this may not dawn on you straight away. You learn a lot about yourself and how far you can push yourself. How great a 'plus' a Ph.D. is can depend very much on how you sell what you've done and you're bound to have picked up some skills that you can sell yourself to a potential employer with. These can be research skills or even technical skills (in my case, I picked up various scientific skills such as X-Ray Diffraction and Scanning Electron Microscopy skills, and also a greater understanding of Materials Science).
However, you should also be aware that such skills, depending on what jobs people do, can also be picked up in the real world. You also need to make sure (talk to potential supervisors) that you pick (or on rare occasions propose) a Ph.D. subject / programme that is right for you. As regards these people who say they want to do a Ph.D. to 'find themselves', well, that's entirely up to them and I certainly didn't find myself (whatever that means).
[BACK]
9) Right, you've thrown in this 'M.Phil.' term and I just about understands what a B.Sc. / B.Eng. / B.A. (three year thing with lectures and exams) and a M.Sc. / M. Eng. / M.A. / M.B.A. are (a one year thing with lectures and exams and a project that some people do after a degree). So what is an M.Phil.?
10) What is a 'teaching company scheme'? I've heard it's a way of getting an M.Phil. or Ph.D. whilst working (and getting paid a decent wage).
'M.Phil.' means 'Master of Philosophy'. This is effectively a Masters degree by research and normally without a taught component. The structure is very like that of a Ph.D. except:
An M.Phil. is normally shorter at 2 to 3 years rather than the 3 to 5 (or more) years for a Ph.D.
An M.Phil. normally does not require the same level of originality or new information (but does not get you out of the literature review). It is usually used to apply current knowledge to an application or a process and, thus, it is very common for it to be part of a paid post shared between a University and an industrial company (but not always) as part of a 'Teaching Company' scheme. Such schemes can be a good way of gaining vital real world works experience whilst getting a research qualification, plus getting a proper wage at the same time.
An M.Phil. dissertation is generally smaller than a thesis, normally 50 to 100 pages.
It's not sometimes referred to as an M.Phil. and you can get it called something like M.Sc. / M.Eng. / M.A. by research instead. As if that's not confusing enough, someone doing an M.Phil. (or a masters by any name by research) can be upgraded to a Ph.D. if their research work can be shown to be innovative and providing sufficient new information to a subject area. This normally happens at the mid-point exam (an M.Phil normally follows a very similar structure as a Ph.D. and there's still two exams - mid-point and final viva) at the discretion of the examiners. Teaching company candidates can be upgraded to Ph.D. too, however, you might find yourself doing some of the extra work you need to do in your own time if it is not within the scope or aims of the teaching company scheme. I know of one teaching company lad who got upgraded.
Also, a Ph.D. candidate can be downgraded to M.Phil if it is felt they cannot produce enough new information to a subject area. This again can happen at the mid-point exam or even more painfully, at the final oral exam or viva (as explained during question 5).
[BACK]
11) Are there any books or literature I can read to understand better what's involved?
You could look at the Wikipedia entry, however, it's a reasonably heavy read and introduces quite a few terms (including different forms of the Doctor title), which are either not used anymore or becoming increasingly irrelevant even to academics. Probably not the best starting point if you want to keep it simple for now.
There are some books that might be of help - a quick search of Amazon brought up quite a few entries. The most comprehensive amongst these seems to be The Ph.D. Pack Version 3, consisting of How to Get a PhD, How to Write a Thesis and How to Survive Your Viva. The middle book of the three was recommended to me by my immediate predecessor and I don't suppose a quick look at it would do any harm. There are others and perhaps a hunt around a decent quality bookshop or larger library would probably be the best.
However, it's your supervisors who have the final say on approach and no matter what is said anywhere else, what he or she says goes. The best is to talk to any of their past students or researchers that may still be contactable or alternatively, have a look at any theses written by past students or researchers.
[BACK]
I hope that helps to clarify things a little for those thinking about doing a Ph.D. or a non-academic for who all this is right up in the air. However, I finish with the following warning for any potential candidates or those that have attained your Ph.D.
Your qualification only means you have done a degree by research. Although you've worked hard for it and most probably feel you've done something special, it is only special to you (and possibly close family). A Ph.D., as with any other qualification (academic or otherwise) DOES NOT MAKE YOU ANY BETTER OR WORSE THAN ANYONE ELSE - DO NOT PUSH IT IN PEOPLE'S FACES AND ONLY USE THE TITLE IT GIVES YOU DURING PROFESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE. There is nothing worse than someone with a title or with letters after their name (and that includes people with B.Sc.'s, B.Eng.'s and B.A.'s) implying or saying how wonderful they are, even when they don't intend it or mean to. Do not volunteer your qualifications or the fact you've done a course of study unless specifically asked and I would advise downplaying it unless there is requirement to say exactly what you've done (say in a job interview or academic conference - even then, use with caution).
Let's put it this way. In the United Kingdom, a successful Ph.D. candidate gains a qualification that is held by as few as 0.5% of the United Kingdom population, which works out as one person in every two hundred. There is no other way of avoiding the fact you will become part of an elite group, something a lot of people out there DO NOT want to hear about!!!
[BACK]
Anyway, I've had my say and I hope on reading this, you either understand better what a Ph.D. is and if you're considering doing one, it helps you make you're mind up either way. Other people will have differing opinions and don't just take my word, ask around. That's all for now, but if you've any other questions or comments, just send me an e-mail and I'll do my best to help.
Many regards,
Ian A. Inman
| ● What is a Ph.D.? | ● My Ph.D - what's it all about? |