US university questions

[fran]

First of all: Why does a phd take so bloody long in the States?!?
Second: Do all modules that you've ever taken go into your GPA?

[LonelyPilgrim]

2nd question first: they aren't modules they are classes, and yes.

1st question: Because our PhD's are better. For examples, I've heard it said that a PhD from a UK university, other than Oxford or Cambridge, is regarded as little better than a US Masters by most US universities. Essentially, you just have to know a lot more and be much more involved in the research side of most subjects to get a PhD in the States. Dissertations are longer and with stricter requirements, as well.

In most subjects, PhD's are only pursued by persons wishing to go into academia in the US. People wanting a degree that will put them at the top of their professional careers don't usually go much beyond an MA, in most fields.

In one example which pertains to a good friend of mine, an economics PhD and a MA are considered roughly equivalent in the level of education, but focus on teaching toward different goals: MAs are for people who want to work as economists, and PhDs are for people who want to teach economics at the university level or conduct research. Economics is a bit more formal in that respect than most subject areas, but the basic principle is roughly the same.

This is one of the reasons why the quality of education in the US goes from lagging behind a lot of the Western world at the secondary school level to making up the difference at the undergraduate level to being first in the world at postgraduate studies.

(Or at least that's how I've had it explained to me by quite a few of my friends who are now working on post-grad degrees here in the States. Although novium would be the person to talk to about more exact comparisons to the system at St Andrews.)


[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[novium]

grad school varies a lot in the states from school to school and subject to department. But, as I understand it, the main difference is that first, you take a ton of classes in your subject. And often, you also have to pick up a second subject to study. One program I was looking at required:
a set number of classes in the main subject
a second subject within the humanities, not directly related to the subject
a third subject, outside of the humanities.
Oh, and you had to pass this horrible set of tests on all those subjects, plus do a blind translation of a 500 word passage of greek and a 500 word passage of latin. And similar with german, italian, and french (although in those you could use a dictionary).
So basically, in that program, you'd spend 4 years taking classes, then you'd pass the horrible classes, then spend three on the PhD portion, and write your thesis.
And that's not counting language classes to pass the horrible tests (it's like they assume you've been working on the languages since you learned how to read).

But then again, I've only really just started looking into it. You could try asking the people at the www.phdcomics.com forum.

I'm not sure what your GPA question is. Like from school to school? This is how it works- you have your term GPA (i.e. your GPA from one semester), and your GPA for the year, and your A.GPA, your GPA for your entire time at that school/in that program.
For example, in my last year of undergrad, I had a 4.0 GPA for my last term, a 3.46 GPA for the year, and a A.GPA of 3.46 (guess I was fairly consistent through the entire 4 years)
[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[fran]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 22:39, 14th Jun 2007
In most subjects, PhD's are only pursued by persons wishing to go into academia in the US. People wanting a degree that will put them at the top of their professional careers don't usually go much beyond an MA, in most fields.

In one example which pertains to a good friend of mine, an economics PhD and a MA are considered roughly equivalent in the level of education, but focus on teaching toward different goals: MAs are for people who want to work as economists, and PhDs are for people who want to teach economics at the university level or conduct research. Economics is a bit more formal in that respect than most subject areas, but the basic principle is roughly the same.

Quoting novium from 22:53, 14th Jun 2007
grad school varies a lot in the states from school to school and subject to department. But, as I understand it, the main difference is that first, you take a ton of classes in your subject. And often, you also have to pick up a second subject to study. One program I was looking at required:
a set number of classes in the main subject
a second subject within the humanities, not directly related to the subject
a third subject, outside of the humanities.
Oh, and you had to pass this horrible set of tests on all those subjects, plus do a blind translation of a 500 word passage of greek and a 500 word passage of latin. And similar with german, italian, and french (although in those you could use a dictionary).
So basically, in that program, you'd spend 4 years taking classes, then you'd pass the horrible classes, then spend three on the PhD portion, and write your thesis.
And that's not counting language classes to pass the horrible tests (it's like they assume you've been working on the languages since you learned how to read).

But then again, I've only really just started looking into it. You could try asking the people at the www.phdcomics.com forum.

Well... that sounds amazing for your general education and knowledge, but it also sounds like something that would limit this education to a tiny wealthy minority. I'm pretty middle class, but I couldn't afford this. I'm also not sure I see any relevance to your career from your description. But then again: If it's only for people who want to go into academia, then it makes sense. I want to do a phd, but being a lecturer/ tutor would NOT be an option.

Apart from that: I would also be too old... The job that I want to apply for has an age limit.

[novium]

Well, my advisor at home told me to never accept an offer of a place in a grad program if the program wasn't willing or able to take me. That means, not willing or able to basically waive tuition, provide housing and a stipend.

It's kind of an indentured servant type thing. Or apprenticeship. You are their slave, they give you knowledge.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Rilla]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 22:39, 14th Jun 2007

1st question: Because our PhD's are better. For examples, I've heard it said that a PhD from a UK university, other than Oxford or Cambridge, is regarded as little better than a US Masters by most US universities. Essentially, you just have to know a lot more and be much more involved in the research side of most subjects to get a PhD in the States. Dissertations are longer and with stricter requirements, as well.

That is absolute and utter rubbish, in my opinion.

You can't say that American PhDs are "better" than European ones.

As Novium said, the main difference lies in the fact that in America you need to take taught classes and pass exams to get your PhD, in Britain, it's all purely research from the start.
So, you can't say either is better in general, you can only say which would suit you better personally.
From what I know of American undergraduate degrees, they are alot more general, so perhaps American students need those years to learn in their PhD more about their topic, wheras students in Britain already have more of a grounding in their subject area.
Which is better? Again, that's a personal choice.

Also, to get into American postgraduate programs, you need to pass a standardised test (the GRE), there is no such equivalent in Britain.

They are different, certainly, but once you have a PhD, you are employable at universities in either place (in my subject area, anyway).

And a PhD from Oxford or Cambridge is not necessarily "better" either, it varies widely between departments, for example, in my very narrow subject area, the best places to be are Kent and St Andrews.

[hr]

Be good to yourself because nobody else has the power to make you happy.

[exnihilo]

I'm with Rilla. Claptrap. It has always seemed to me to be the other way around, American education tends to be a level down from ours, so your BAs are not much better than our secondary school education, your MAs about our undergrad degrees and your PhDs take so long as a result of that. The large element of teaching in a PhD should be unnecessary if you've completed a first class undergraduate degree and a masters (as most UK PhDs have).

Also, for something that's so bad, holders of British PhDs seem to be awfully sought after by most US colleges. And to suggest that only Oxford and Cambridge give worthwhile PhDs (DPhil in Oxford's case) is just insulting.

[Gubbins]

Likewise, I agree that American PhDs are of comparable level to British PhDs. I was just discussing the different systems with some of my collaborators (who are at the same stage in their PhDs as I am), and as far as I can make out, in the States you tend to enter a PhD with the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree, so you spend your first couple of years getting to the level of the Master's degree you require to get into a PhD course in this country.

[hr]

...then again, that is only my opinion.

[fran]

Quoting novium from 13:50, 15th Jun 2007
Well, my advisor at home told me to never accept an offer of a place in a grad program if the program wasn't willing or able to take me. That means, not willing or able to basically waive tuition, provide housing and a stipend.

It's kind of an indentured servant type thing. Or apprenticeship. You are their slave, they give you knowledge.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

And how likely is that? I mean how many students erally pay everything (or the majority of their fees) and how many get them waived?

[novium]

I'd think it was pretty likely, unless you are in law school or getting an MBA.

Quoting fran from 16:21, 16th Jun 2007

Quoting novium from 13:50, 15th Jun 2007
Well, my advisor at home told me to never accept an offer of a place in a grad program if the program wasn't willing or able to take me. That means, not willing or able to basically waive tuition, provide housing and a stipend.

It's kind of an indentured servant type thing. Or apprenticeship. You are their slave, they give you knowledge.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

And how likely is that? I mean how many students erally pay everything (or the majority of their fees) and how many get them waived?

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[novium]

I think you are wrong about the value of US degrees. THey run on a different system, but my undergraduate degree at UCSC is the equal of an undergrad degree here at St Andrews; they just were structured differently. The difference is that in the states the focus is on providing a solid liberal arts background- and yes, a liberal arts education at the university level.

The US sees british masters degrees as lightweight because the masters degrees in the states tend to require far longer dissertations, for example (At least, that is how it was explained to me).

And you do go right into a PhD- except not. You go to grad school. You either go for a terminal masters (meaning you *can't* get a PhD) or be put on the road to a PhD, which involves all those classes and things i mentioned, the and the insanely hellish round of tests you have to pass to get into the PhD.... they take longer because the require a lot more breadth.
They're just different systems. I don't think one is better than the other.

Quoting exnihilo from 15:25, 15th Jun 2007
I'm with Rilla. Claptrap. It has always seemed to me to be the other way around, American education tends to be a level down from ours, so your BAs are not much better than our secondary school education, your MAs about our undergrad degrees and your PhDs take so long as a result of that. The large element of teaching in a PhD should be unnecessary if you've completed a first class undergraduate degree and a masters (as most UK PhDs have).

Also, for something that's so bad, holders of British PhDs seem to be awfully sought after by most US colleges. And to suggest that only Oxford and Cambridge give worthwhile PhDs (DPhil in Oxford's case) is just insulting.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Setsuna]

Strange to agree with exnihilo, but...

Oxford and Cambridge are pretty average when it comes to PhDs (in sciences, anyway). The whole recruitment protocol is pretty similar to any other university in the UK (apart from the whole college thing) and nowhere near as stringent as it is for undergrads. And anyway, you are pretty much responsible for the quality of your PhD, and it seems you are judged by the quality of your work and how famous your supervisor is rather than where you got your qualification from. For example, the best PhD you could get in Genetics in the UK would be from Edinburgh or maybe Manchester, for example, and Oxford at a push. I work at Sheffield just now, and they tame other universities at Climate Change research from an ecological perspective.

American PhDs just sound like such a waste of time. 7odd years is just far too long. You have the potential to get your PhD, do a few postdocs and even become a research fellow in that time in the UK.

[adam freeman]

Or, I should say, as far as I know from Political Science, American PhDs are better. Much better. You have next to no chance of landing an academic job in a top 20 or so US university with a British (or, for that matter, European) PhD. Yet an American PhD is a pretty good stepping stone to a top academic job in the UK. The St Andrews School of IR has recently employed lecturers with degrees from UC Irvine and Johns Hopkins.

A notable exception is Oxford's Politics DPhil (at least for political theory). Another possible exception is the LSE. From their website: "In 2002 the Government Department at LSE, in a departure from the traditional 'thesis only' manner of doing doctoral work in most of Europe, introduced an exciting new PhD Programme in Political Science that combines rigorous training with specialised research [...] The central aim of the LSE PhD is to help produce a new generation of political scientists who upon graduation will immediately be qualified to accept leading positions in their professions."

What they mean is: "graduates who might stand half a chance of competing with their US-educated peers." It's not necessarily true that US PhD students are more talented or effective, but they are comparatively more sought after, and not just within the US.

That said, and I'm not sure about at other US universities, but there are several PhD programs at the University of Chicago where the expected time to completion is eleven years!!

[Jono]

Pish and tish! This is all nothing but hearsay and national back-patting! Let’s see the statistics!

[hr]


Exclusive to The Sinner, and all other fora.

[Humphrey]

The job that I want to apply for has an age limit.

Hmmm, that doesnt sound legal at all. what were their reasons for imposing an age limit?.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Marit]

Quoting Gubbins from 16:32, 15th Jun 2007
Likewise, I agree that American PhDs are of comparable level to British PhDs. I was just discussing the different systems with some of my collaborators (who are at the same stage in their PhDs as I am), and as far as I can make out, in the States you tend to enter a PhD with the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree, so you spend your first couple of years getting to the level of the Master's degree you require to get into a PhD course in this country.

Actually, you don't require a Master's degree to get into a PhD-course here. I don't have a Master's degree myself.