I think TreeofLife's statement about their MA experience is a good example of what I'm taking about regarding the quality. They had the MSc but felt that a research based one would have been much more useful and effective than a taught one. This is indicative of what I mean by the quality, and not quantity of experience. The MSc was still very helpful, but not as much as perhaps a research based one.

This experience can also be gained in other settings and not necessarily in a university. A lot of my research experience came externally, providing a more rounded approach to social science than a strictly academic one.

But I agree that doing an MA or MSc is still beneficial and more helpful, it gives you more time to become acquainted with the academic life, something that I had to quickly catch up on and am still working out. However, because I have experience in industry, I can more readily leave academia if I needed to, whereas I know some individuals struggle to make that transition.

So at the end of the day, a fast-track PhD has benefits and disadvantages, and that perhaps if one chooses to fast-track, they should seek alternate means to gain the experience necessary regarding what they want to do. But I disagree completely that someone without a MA/MSc will perform worse than someone with one. An educational qualification doesn't necessarily tell the whole story of what a person is capable of.

You're quantifying experience without considering the vast amount of variables, and using a hard science as your example without considering that there are plenty of other disciplines in which the PhD experience is vastly different. The argument is not easily transferred.

2 more years experience isn't necessarily 'more experience' if you have a crap go of it. In fact, those two years could potentially be a waste depending on how it pans out.

You say it's objective, but then contradict yourself by saying it's highly individual. Would that not then suggest that the experience is not quantifiably objective, but rather, subjective? Wouldn't it also depend highly on the discipline, the school, the graduate program, the supervisor(s), access to resources and equipment, access to funding, access to quality mentorship, access to support systems, the individual's personal life and whether or not they have disabilities, experience systematic discrimination, have family commitments or family breakdowns, have health issues?

All of those things will impact how a person performs in their program and the quality of experience gained (and really, it's quality over quantity). 2 more years might *seem* like more, but this is only a surface examination. It doesn't say anything about the quality, or what the person can do/has done.

If you take a bachelor degree as an example, many students get 3 and 4 year bachelor degrees. But not all of them will have the same quality of education or 'experience.' It might be perceived as such, and yes students will come out with more experience, but more isn't better, it has no meaning if you don't consider what this experience actually looks like.

I might have a PhD but that doesn't say that much about the quality of my work. My research output, my ability to attract grants, my projects, my teaching, all of that says much more than a very basic quantifiable measure of how long I went to school, which is what you are basing your argument on.

I find this a little insulting....However, it's also not clear if you are referring to hard science degrees only, because I am in the social sciences and do mixed methods (quant/qual) as well as both content analysis and interviews as my major research methodologies.

If the former, I may have had just bachelors with honours, but I also graduated with an exceptionally high average (over 90%), had two RAs under my belt by my undergraduate graduation, one completed for a not-for-profit while the other for my university, 2 scholarships and 1 grant, a publication and fieldwork experience.

I performed exceptionally well during my PhD despite the set backs I mentioned earlier. I was fully funded, had a very strong result with my PhD examination (pass with minor and I mean took 2 days minor changes), continued to gain RA experience, completed social research tenders (i.e. outside the university research for not-for-profits/governments), conference presentations, had published from my PhD prior to submission and am currently publishing more works, and a heap of teaching experience that included complete unit coordination and lecturing as well as tutoring and guest lecturing. None of this includes any of the community outreach or professional service that I engage in on top of all of this.

But this wasn't easy and I worked very, and I mean very hard. I knew I had a disadvantage coming in straight from a BA Honours, but to suggest that someone like me 'wouldn't perform as well' as someone with a masters degree is a bit pretentious. I know a number of masters to PhDs doing absolutely poorly, and ones doing very well.

It's highly individual and on that note, no PhD student will have the same routine that works for them.

In Australia you can go straight from a BA Honours to a PhD without having to do any postgrad stuff in between.

When I went to Australia for my Masters by Research Only (no coursework) in 2011, the first day I met my supervisor he advised me to upgrade to a PhD and to treat the project as a PhD project, which I did. I submitted in 3.5 years and have been finished since December 2014 (now graduated and officially a Dr yay!)

I'm originally from Canada, so had applied for a masters thinking that I had to do one first, but this wasn't the case in Australia.

It's not a 'fast-track' per say but the option to skip the MA if you have the capacity. However, there are upsides and downsides. The upside was a quicker finish for the PhD, but some downsides included feeling a bit behind (even though I did very well) because I didn't have the MA experience coming straight out from a BA honours, and feeling behind in some areas such as knowing about grants, getting published and conference attending. It was also a whole new subject area for me as well.

So to fast track, the options need to be weighed. It hasn't impacted my career as I managed to land a T&R position at my uni and am beginning to collaborate with other researchers on projects, but it also hasn't been easy.

So one thing to keep in mind is that fast tracking can be a disadvantage for you when considering all the other not-so-directly related aspects of the PhD/Academic life. I had full funding from the university in the form of an international scholarship, so grants were not things I was thinking about (but now wish I had to beef up the CV).

I had 4 years BA and then the PhD took an additional 3.5 years, so a total of 7.5 years.

Do the corrections and get it done.

Trying to fight it is a waste of your time and energy. Just get them done and then move on.

The PhD thesis is not going to be the best thing you ever write, and I've said elsewhere on this forum, that many academics 2, 5, 10 years down the road look back to their thesis and think "hmm...that was a bit crap wasn't it?"

Not saying that your thesis is, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not worth fighting the changes. When you apply for academic jobs, it's not about the thesis itself that is of importance, it's everything else that you've done since the thesis.

The point of the thesis is to demonstrate that you have the capacity to produce good research, where being awarded the doctorate means you are 1) an expert in your field and 2) an accredit or qualified high-end researcher.

But the thesis itself, will change substantially. As I draft journal articles from my thesis, plenty of material has been rewritten, altered, changed, different frameworks use and so on. It's an organic thing, research, and the thesis is a part of this.

Regarding the pedantic stuff, if you think this is bad, just wait till you spend years publishing. Even if your thesis might be good as a book as is, it's highly likely that a publisher will still ask you to do substantial rewrites and changes.

And journal articles? Forget it. Reviewers will ask you to do a heap of things, some that you'll have to do, and some that you can fight or justify in not doing. And even after you do everything they ask, your article may very will still get rejected before publishing.

Like many others have said, I had a very positive experience with my supervisors who continue to support me post PhD.

What I felt was lacking, was not so much direction from them, but from graduate programs about accessing grants and funding, knowing how to determine what conferences one should present at, and how to effectively build partnerships and collaborations with other researchers.

The frustration, and an overwhelming sense of uncertainty I'm currently facing in my current teaching and research role, is this expectation to secure funding, without knowing where to start.

Despite going through 'induction' programs, I've had very little mentorship in this area, and seeking out additional support has left me nowhere. The other frustration is not be eligible for seed project grants and other small-scale ones that could help me get started, because I'm on a one-year contract, or my academic level is not high enough (I.E I'm an A, and most start at B).

Not an opinion, an informed position. I have a Graduate Certificate in Academic Practice which is all about teaching, and I'm an Assistant Lecturer (Level A Academic) at a Group of 8 University (Australian version of Ivy League in the US and Russell Group in the UK).

I've been teaching in Academia since 2011 and have taken on chief examiner/unit coordinator positions since 2013. My standard teaching evaluations vary between a 3.5 and 4.5/5.

I passed my PhD in December and will be graduating in less than 2 weeks where I can formally use the title of Dr (and passed with very, and I mean very minor changes to my thesis). I am also published and the president of a not-for-profit organisation that received a large fund of grant money from the government for mental health project.

I have full time contract teaching & research position, which means that each semester I am the chief examiner and unit coordinator for at least one or more units and have been a chief examiner/unit coordinator for three years now. This semester my unit has over 300 students and I take on a heap of marking as well as ensure that my teaching assistants are marking fairly and providing constructive feedback. The use of in-depth qualitative rubrics helps to ensure this.

I'm also just in the process of finalising my unit for next semester which I revamped completely from scratch.

So not only do I have the right to an opinion, I have the right to an INFORMED position because I have been teaching and utilising seminars and other workshops to improve my teaching but have also been teaching in an authoritative position.

I agreed that the comment "this sounds like bullshit" is inappropriate and that feedback needs to be constructive, but I disagree that making everything positive is helpful. Students need to be able to take on a variety of feedback styles.

I've had that happen, though they didn't give me two months. I think they gave me a week?

It's a common thing I suspect. Just buckle down and do it would be my best advice.

I disagree. I think that is in part, babying these students and also disregards the fact that many students produce appalling work in which nothing nice can be said (I have marked plenty). Reviewers in academia can be pretty harsh as well, especially PhD thesis examiners (I had one good one and one harsh one).

There is also the issue of 'what constitutes positive feedback?" For some people, this needs to be everything said with a happy face and smile, while for others, its just constructive but not sugarcoated or re-framed in any light. Some even do better with negative feedback, there's really no right or wrong way other than inappropriate remarks like the one you received (which you have every right to be upset about!)




I use a really in-depth qualitative rubric. This tends to help with the explaining a number of things that shouldn't need to be repeated in written comments.Then the comments I provide can be much more specific to their understanding of the actual content, as opposed to a mini-essay in itself. I know that as a marker for a unit the templates you get are dependent on the lecturer so you can be stuck with nothing.

If you end up doing your own units I would highly recommend spending some time in developing a rubric for assessing the work, I find it generally pretty helpful and haven't had too many issues regarding it.

On yeah I totally agree with that article. It's no better here in Australia.

They say that degrees in social sciences are useless but I'm thinking that you have a lot more flexibility with a SS degree than a hard science one. As they said, once the technology dies down you're left as a dinosaur..

I don't have a postdoc, I'm in a Teaching & Research position which is a bit different. I have to produce research, but my focus is more teaching related. I do have an honours student which is fun, and the topics I teach are really interesting (well to me!). But I've been lucky in being offered this contract. I have numerous friends who have the PhDs still on sessional contracts...It's rough everywhere.

Just to add, in future it probably would be better for participants to sign consent forms when they arrived at the appointment and not sent out beforehand.

What can be sent out beforehand is an explanatory statement with a copy of what the consent form will look like, but that when they arrive to the appointment, they sign one there.

Interesting outcome. The comments are even more interesting...

I think if you're weighing up the employment/salary benefits of academia and PhDs, then they will fall short. The only real 'known' I would argue are trades, like plumbing and electricity. You want to make money? Become a tradie, the tradies here in Australia make a heap of money, a hell of a lot more than what an academic makes (but Australia has a very strong anti-intellectualism culture....).

It's a messed up system, Academia, absolutely. But it's really no different to what others are facing in industry and outside of Academia as chickpea has said. Everywhere has shifted to short term contracts, perm jobs are fading. My partner works in industry and his company has made redundant a heap of people. Because of his specialised IT skill set he hasn't been, but it's not a pleasant atmosphere.

The system will crumble. In the meantime, I would look into Industry roles if you're concerned about academic jobs. I know Ian (Mackam-Beefy) left Academia for industry, and others have done the same. I'm still in academia right now but I'm keeping my eye on what's needed of me for industry roles, in particular applied social research.

I agree 100% about being grateful. I also agree with your earlier statement that you'll be happy at the end of the day you did a PhD. I am happy, I'm ecstatic that in less than a few weeks I'll be walking across that stage with a silly hat on my head. I don't care about whether or not it impacts my employment opportunities. I'll find a way to make it work for me. I did something I had wanted to do for years, and I proved to myself that I could do it. I was exactly like you, unsure about whether or not I would get the PhD, and when I found out I had passed, I bawled my eyes out (it was strangely overwhelming!).

Your argument is a little inconsistent. You're saying that you need a PhD to work outside of Academia (i.e. in Industry) for science roles (fair enough) but complaining about post docs/academic jobs, which is in Academia and which has been, over the past few years steadily declining?

So why not leave university and seek a role in industry? How is the university responsible for this particular issue? Is the issue that these industry jobs don't exist, or exist but PhDs aren't landing them? Because then it's not really about academic roles, but rather, roles in Industry which is a separate issue (though connected).

I absolutely agree that universities are churning out more PhDs than what is needed, and part of this is a pressure to pass PhDs that shouldn't have been passed, and recruiting PhDs for workload points (at least here in Australia). I also agree that universities utilise grad students as a form of cheap labour, 100%.

However, the claim about science degrees can only be effective if generally, students earning science PhDs are planning on entering industry for these science roles that require them, but are unable to get them for a variety of reasons like Ian has suggested. If this is the case, you can't really blame a university for producing PhDs for these roles, it's not really the university's responsibility to connect with Industry though I think this would be more helpful for employment prospects. A university is a space for higher learning, but it's not a trades school...I never saw the space as a place for employment prospects.

Your response referred to academic positions, which is not suggestive of one leaving academia, which is where my argument lays about the competitive nature. And regarding postdocs/lecturing roles, it's no different between hard science and social science/arts, you still need PhD for a postdoc or academic role regardless of your discipline.

The thing about this article (and perhaps the culture?) that gets me though is that I never considered the PhD as a pathway into employment. I always thought of the PhD as a pathway into higher learning, but not to improve my employment prospects. I knew going in that if I wanted a good job that paid well, I'd be better to go into a trade that's in demand, or a skill set that's in demand.

I did the PhD because I wanted to learn.

The other thing is that I knew going in that if I were to stay in Academia, it would be highly competitive and I would not be able to just assume that getting PhD means I would get a job in Academia.

Academics are not in demand, especially in my field. And even less in demand are Academics who soley produce research. My department personally is not a fan of research-only academics and prefers to have teaching & research staff, so while I was a postgraduate I did a lot of sessional teaching, unit coordination and lecturing. Luckily because of this I was able to land a one-year T&R contract at my uni with a decent paygrade (for Australia).

I do agree that the universities are creating false advertising and creating a culture in which we can be said to believe that PhD/MA = Job in the same way that undergraduate degrees are marketed (all because of new business model).

However, I also think that students need to take some self-responsibility and inform themselves as opposed to just listening to everything thrown at them. Nothing is handed to us (unless we're white, male, rich, etc). A good student is one who is well-informed. There is plenty of information available to suggest to new potentials that a PhD/MA is not the automatic pathway to a employment in either Academia or Industry...