======= Date Modified 10 Apr 2011 13:15:57 =======

======= Date Modified 10 Apr 2011 13:16:45 =======

======= Date Modified 10 Apr 2011 13:17:18 =======

======= Date Modified 04 Apr 2011 13:48:02 =======

Okay, thanks for explaining that. I have to admit, my brain for some strange reason interpreted EngD as DPhil. Still getting rid of a pretty savage cold (eyes streaming) so I'll blame that!!! :$

I guess the original poster has four years to fall back on when applying for jobs!!! In their sitation at least, I'd apply for a direct position.

However, I will comment that the thread title covers both EngD and PhD, so my fence sitting from the PhD angle still applies.

======= Date Modified 10 Apr 2011 13:18:04 =======

======= Date Modified 04 Apr 2011 11:48:49 =======
I understand the other posts, however, I don't entirely agree.

You can argue four years experience, however, where have you been for those four years?  One thing you cannot get away from is that expectations outside academia are very different and a lot more target and deadline driven.  Yes, you do get deadlines in academia, however, these are inclined to slippage provided you can show you've made some sort of 'effort' to meet them.

My answer, having spent significant periods on both sides of the fence is between the two poll options.  If you've had a period in the 'real world' before returning to do a PhD / DPhil, then definitely go for direct entry.  However, if you're mid-twenties and have done PhD / DPhil directly after your degree without a spell outside academia, then I would also consider 'graduate entry'.

To learn any graduate level plus job to a high level of competence, it takes roughly two years depending on the skill level of the job.  For those fresh to the 'real world'  only if the direct position is similar to your PhD / DPhil would I say go for it.   However, if significantly different and you are looking for a career with a given company, a graduate scheme may give you a greater breadth of understanding of the organisation and how it fits into it's marketplace.

It's not a clear cut answer and there will be shades of grey depending on the skills jump the candidate has to make.   Also, a PhD / DPhil equips with you a certain mindset in that you can be too focussed on a small number of tasks when in the real world you have to sometimes juggle many jobs simultaneously.   That was my biggest challenge and I'm still not sure I've shaken myself free of that.   I've also read bits and pieces where employers have said PhD / DPhil holders are perceived as not taking deadlines too seriously, a major annoyance to some.

A graduate scheme may thus at least instill in some a greater appreciation of these differences and why they exist, before more responsibility is conferred upon the person concerned.

The length of time taken depends on both the length of your paper and the other commitments of the selected referees. The duration has no bearing on the likelihood of acceptance or rejection. As I've also refereed papers, the standard of the English can be a hinderance too.

I've had papers take anywhere between 2 and 10 months to be processed. One that required major corrections came back quickly and one that was accepted with minor edits accounted for the ten month one.

From a refereeing point of view, I normally take two weeks though one was done in 48 hours.

The best time to submit is late June as the academic year is ending and exams are out the way.

Journals are finding it very hard to find people to referee due to time commitments of people with the necessary technical background.

I had a slightly embarrasing one a few months after I passed. I dreamt that my external examiner was giving a conference speech to a room full of 500 people in just her underwear. :$

I'll not say any more except that given she was a reasonably attractive woman in her early 40s at the time, it was actually quite a nice dream. :$

======= Date Modified 03 Apr 2011 19:22:26 =======

On the latest passports, the page with the biometric chip has you full name with title printed on it (the page immediately following your photo ID). The passport office also told me they were going to do this (one of my other forms of photo ID made it clear I had the PhD and it was a rush job, so couldn't easily avoid - grab first thing at hand). I personally didn't give a monkeys either way and I think my reaction at the time was "whatever!"

I definitely agree that alot of people don't get what a PhD is, one reason not to make a song and dance about it.



I gather there's a story in the above.
;-)

Yup, there's no distiction between Bachelors, Masters and PhD. Until recently, the likes of OFQUAL did not distinguish between HND and degree on the one hand, and Masters and PhD on the other.

However, this has changed by the looks of it.

http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/qualification-and-assessment-framework/89-articles/250-explaining-the-national-qualifications-framework

I am wondering if the census can't be specific about qualifications due to the Data Protection Act hence the brad classifications?

I rooted around quite a while back as regards what proportions of people had what qualifications. It takes a lot of working out and trawling, but I came up with a figure of about 0.5% of the UK population having PhDs. The number of sucessful PhDs works out at about 1%, but half of candidates seem to be overseas.

Yup, talking to the students helped me choose a 'new University' over an established institution and I made the right decision. When a fellow north easterner rips the living p*ss out of you and makes you feel at home, that was a big plus point and I knew there'd be a few friendly faces. The 'established' Uni in comparison was full of very aloof people and was a switch off. I later did a years post-doc at the 'established' Uni, which turned out to be an uncomfortable experience, confirming I'd made the right decision (though as I've realised from another thread, I could have done more to allieviate that - i.e. approach another senior academic to see if they'd take me under their wing).

You have to realise that many students will be seriously stressed and at varying stages. If you could get your hands on a recently qualified post-doc from each, you probably get a more informed decision (i.e. stress out of the equation).

I admit that Cambridge would make your CV more saleable once you finish, however:

1) Have you had look around at each and got a feel for people and facilities? This is key as you need to be able to work with them.

2) Which has facilities and specialities closest to your needs?

I've done some nanotechnology (cool!!!) and from this I suggest also you have arummage around their websites and also see what they've done paperwise on http://www.sciencedirect.com (get personnel names from individual websites and do an author search on Science Direct).

This requires an informed decision by yourself. Sorry to keep this so general.

This is where the alternative approach (more common in the USA) of putting all qualifications after you name comes in handy.

Joe Bloggs, M.D. instead of Dr. Joe Bloggs
Joe Bloggs, Ph.D. instead of Dr. Joe Bloggs

Problem solved!!! To me also, it makes the person seems slightly less aloof.

For funding, either a 2(i) on it's own or a 2(ii) plus Masters (considered equivalent from a funding point of view) should be okay. It's now a matter of how you sell yourself for potential PhD studentships.

I will comment a couple of years in the real world (general research and development will do) would help your cause.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke.

I believe the lady concerned must at some point be held to account. She is, at the end of the day, a thief.

However, I respect what you are saying and perhaps someone in the future, in a stronger position, will deal with her.