Doing an EngD is obviously fine, if you love the topic. But I think an EngD, at least from an Industrial perspective, will not necc earn you more money at a given point in your career than without it, nor would you necc Charter quicker (what is all the fuss about getting Chartered quickly??).
In businesses, salary review committees award pay on the basis of staff who deliver for the business, and simply their personal qualifications acquired are, at best, only a part of that 'delivery'. Most of those doing the awarding will not have PhDs,EngDs etc, some may not have degrees at all, and an expectation of salary on the basis of an EngD may have the opposite effect to that desired. I am Chartered, and getting Chartered (for what it is worth?) is a matter of having the requisite degree, and building a portfolio of experience, and then justifying it at interview. From what I've seen, whether you get that with EngD work, or just the right mix of Industrial (i.e. project/applications) experience, doesn't matter much. Certainly, getting Chartered is easier with that experience than not.

Seems like a good option if all the aspects of it are a good fit. Would be interested in knowing more.

All the part-time PhDs I've come across are where the employer funds a member of staff to do one over 5/6yrs, or where a person does the PhD in their spare time. I always think employer-funded ones are a bit of a double-edged sword - yes, the funding is good, but how beneficial is it to the employer or the career? In general, I would question why a business would pay a full salary to someone to do PhD research (the best sort being 'free of constraints' and therefore not for profit), when they could work on something the business could sell for profits. (Of course, there may be good cases) Some employees do them for personal development, but its a big effort for something which end up as ornamental. The equivalent of 3yrs full-time spread over -how many- years spare time has always seemed a real slog.

Haven't done one, but worked with people who had.

Isn't EngD like a PhD, but 4years, with some extra courses.? It's still a research project, thesis etc.

Some people I know who had them were academics, some in Industry. I don't think their prospects and perspectives on their careers would be much different from people with PhDs.

From the industrial perspective, EngD/PhDs had the Academic/Research background and ethos. This does not neccesarily align with constrained budgets and so on, so there could be a little friction, but that's normal I guess.

Alternatively, you could spend the time in Industry, and whether one or other is best depends on the field and personal aspirations, and the type of professional you want to be seen as.

I don't think the EngD/PhDs made any more money, or climbed the ladder any faster, but they did have those little letters, which is nice. (though not everyone likes it if they insist on being addressed Dr ;) )

I'd think if you were going to do a PhD do it straight after the MSc. I've known people in renewables, and I don't think you'd need a PhD to do most jobs in renewables industry (obviously, if the PhD is its own reward then great)
There is renewables research in a few UK universities, but there is also still plenty in how to get more out of carbon energies.
Cheers

Just out of curiosity, could you tell us what you expect to get for $41k - that would pay for a lot of tutorial materials, support, books, marked assignments. Are these specified? Would you be assigned a tutor with appropriate credentials?

I don't think I would risk a commercial distance-learning course - all I tried was an A-level, with tutor support - even if these are provided as part of the package, what you can't accurately gauge in advance is the quality - in my case both were sub-standard and not worth the money.

In terms of help, many British schools offer online business qualifications, but I doubt very many online PhDs

You can do whatever you want. Currently, there's tons of work in UK engineering.

Most UK aerospace engineers don't hold PhDs ... can be a well-respected engineer in the UK with a good first-degree, plus a portfolio of expertise/experience and common sense.

A PhD might make sense for lots of reasons as well, but may not make a huge difference in Industry, whereas I guess it's mandatory for academia. A PhD could be 3 fun years, or a career cul-de-sac, I'm not sure how you would predict which.

I think I understand this myself. I could have had half a dozen PhD offers just after leaving Uni, but I wanted to see how 'real' work is done, and in my field, engineering, it is all about what the big organisations are doing and building experience. I also thought about doing a PhD part-time, but this looks very difficult.
Looking back from about 10years away, I don't regret what I've done - I didn't do a PhD because I couldn't find that single niche to pursue for 3 years and beyond. 'general' work offers so many opportunities to move between projects. The trick is to keep the intellectual challenge at a high level. I guess that people end up doing what they 'want' to do, because they follow their heart.
Yes, I can see that a PhD is an intellectual mountain worth climbing, but there are lots of clever people without PhDs, doing brilliant stuff, and lots of dim people with PhDs, who are really in 'dead-ends'. If you work for a bit and gain financial security, you will always be able to leave your job and do that PhD, at a choice of institution. However, that won't answer the question of what you do with it - be an academic? perhaps, but if not, having the letters PhD is unlikely to make much difference to your career.

hi, have you asked your old department? It must be possible to return to academic work without recomemendation letters from the actual people who taught you first time round. They might have left their posts just after you finished for a variety of good reasons, without it adversely affecting what you wish to do.

Perhaps someone at your previous department could write a letter reflecting your work and accomplishments there, even if they didn't know you personally?

Is returning to University something you've wanted to do for a while? do you think it's something you think you'd have to do now, or do you feel you could come to it later as well?
Just interested because that's my situation, though I've had a career in an R&D environment, so Uni work would not be that different

best wishes

hi, have you asked your old department? It must be possible to return to academic work without recomemendation letters from the actual people who taught you first time round. They might have left their posts just after you finished for a variety of good reasons, without it adversely affecting what you wish to do.

Perhaps someone at your previous department could write a letter reflecting your work and accomplishments there, even if they didn't know you personally?

Is returning to University something you've wanted to do for a while? do you think it's something you think you'd have to do now, or do you feel you could come to it later as well?
Just interested because that's my situation, though I've had a career in an R&D environment, so Uni work would not be that different

best wishes

======= Date Modified 09 Jan 2010 21:06:48 =======
======= Date Modified 09 Jan 2010 21:03:22 =======
Hi mystic_guru
I know what you mean! I'm 32, an engineer, with 10yrs good experience, a good job, 1st class hons etc, but I would also love the chance to climb 'mountain PhD' - because it's there, as they say.

I've had a pretty similar career to you, in that I've done good work, but the scope to do 'advanced' work in industry or government is so limited - even when the problems are there, management are risk-averse, and unwilling to see exploraton as desirable. To add insult to injury, I am involved in meetings where we scope projects for PhD students to do (usually only moderately well), but there's little/no route for staff members to do some work themselves. I am simply considering leaving my job (or career break), simply to get on with it, do the work, enjoy the challenge, and write that thick report.

I am quite intrigued by the idea that I could scope my own PhD - I can think of lots of topics, so will look into that!

Goood luck!

======= Date Modified 04 Nov 2009 23:35:15 =======
======= Date Modified 04 Nov 2009 23:25:23 =======
I think it is wrong to regard an undergrad degree as a 'waste' if it is not 'converted' into a postgrad degree. A waste might be if you did an undergrad or a postgrad degree and did not pursue that as your career.

Please; would be interested in views on my situation....

I have a 1st in engineering, undergrad masters, and I enjoy detailled, exciting work. I considered a PhD when I started my career, but PhDs in the outside world are often not really neccesary; after all a PhD is about research.

My career has been 10 years so far, and I recently changed my job in the search for more technical work in Industry. What I have found is that in Industry technical standards can be very low, the managers manage the 'business' not the technical standards, and the longer-term analytical projects are sent to Universities anyway. So my attention has turned to whether I should finally give academia a try.

There seem to be so many unknowns - will I get a good project & supervisor? will I miss my professional salary?

I should add that I am sure I would love the thrill & satisfaction of deep technical work, and I am financially very secure. In some ways, I regard a PhD as a life goal, as much as professional achievement, and others say I'd do well.

Should I take the plunge?

All contributions welcome please!

Thanks

Can I ask about this - I am struggling to see how a PhD can be undoable?

I haven't done a PhD, but I have done 'research' in industry - with a PhD, you set out with goals for something to investigate, you read papers/articles, you do some predictions, experiments, analysis, look for patterns etc.. etc.. If what you have at the end is some new insight, or conclusion, which adds something to the field, and which you can write about and present, isn't that the PhD? Almost regardless or whether it was what you thought you'd find at the begining?

Would like to understand better .. thinking (dreaming) of the day when I'll get to do that 'real' science

cheers!

It depends where you see your career going. A PhD is the entry qualification to academic research, and some, though certainly not all, technology fields in Industry. You can do research without a PhD in many fields.

Also, while many people in research have a PhD, they're often not in the field they are researching - so the PhD doesn't mean that much, since they might well know less than a BSc who's been there longer, or who's more intelligent. Though, a PhD gives more status at conferences, and up the management chain.

My philosophy is to do it if you think you'll enjoy the project, and it's the only way to do that type of work, and it'll help in your career. Otherwise, the opportunity cost is very high, in terms of salary, career advancement, and industrial experience. In the time taken to complete a PhD you could have completed 3 or more company projects, plus a bunch of other stuff.

HTH

Hi - think I'm in similar position. I got a good first degree, and considered going straight in a PhD - however I didn't have a topic, and thought I'd just do a technicla job and save a few ££. Also, in engineering, you don't need a PhD at all to do almost all the jobs, so in these circumstances a PhD may be considered excessive. However, after having been in research for a few years, what passes for 'research' in industry is often very thin, and lacking in detail or insight, and I am now very motivated to fit in a PhD in my career, provided I can hone the topic. There is a financial cost, but as someone else said, its like a calling, sth that has to be done.