I am doing my MSc in Canada but I am considering UK to do my PhD.
My only concern is that UK training seems to me not as good as that in Canada or USA as the student in many cases accepts a PhD admission offer where the project details are well-defined (e.g., objective, techniques, model organism ...etc). In Canada/USA, the student spends his/her first year do nothing but reading to come up with a project. As I have a lecturer position without the need to do a postdoc, I am afraid that the UK PhD won't make knowledgeable/self-dependent enough to initial my own research program as a Lecturer. Any feedback is appreciated.

I'm not a scientist, but generally UK PhDs are no less vigorous than US or Canadian degrees with respect to research standards and producing 'independent' work. If your worry is not being left alone to do your own research or taking your own initiative - I don't think you have many worries with a UK PhD. Most UK PhDers moan about this issue.

Having justed completed my PhD in the UK, I can safely say that i was not spoon fed through my project as you seem to imply UK PhDs are. Most projects tend to come with a basic outline as most funding bodies require that. If you do a PhD in the Uk which is equal to PhDs in the US or Canada there is lots of opportunities to expand and contribute to your work.

Forgive the generalisation, but I would argue that in many respects the UK system may be a more challenging place to pursue doctoral studies than in the US. Consider that regardless of what country you are doing your PhD in: Your thesis will ultimately be examined by an international expert in your feild of study. This person will judge your work based on its contribution to knowledge rather than the style of graduate education you have recieved ( US Vs UK or otherwise)

More often than not, students in the UK are expected to achieve this with little formal training in the feild of study, whereas in the US students are given the opportunity to spent a couple of years taking courses and undertaking coursework relevant to the PhD, before they start their PhD. I would imagine this prepares students a lot more than if they had been thrown straight into the deep end ( as happens quite lot in the UK ) and this can potentially make for a more productive PhD research project.

anyone disagree?

rjb203, what you say is pretty much the same as what I was told when I was first looking at doing a PhD. I completely agree with your sentiments.

The US PhD involves more structured training i.e. having to attended a number of classes (usually at masters level) and then often writing quite a descriptive PhD. I believe the Canadian PhD is more akin to the British model.

I'm in biology too and I started a founded Ph.D. project 2 years ago. Obviously every project need some main goals to reach and a background, but it doesn't mean that everything is already written!
Secondly, if you need two years of training before starting your research, what did you do during your master or bachelor??? playing football and drinking beer??
Secondly USA, Canada and UK are very famous for their University. I have the feeling that (at least in biology) this is absolutely true for Ph.D. courses but not so much for bachelors and masters, and a lot of time is just a matter of name. In the Uk and USA I've met a lot of master Sudents with a very approximative preparation. In particular for basic biology concepts. Universities reduce the exam programs in a ridicoulus way and exams are so easy!! (try asking some Erasmus students). It seems that for them business and money are much more important that knowledge.
I'd like to know the opinion of other European not-UK students.

I wouldn't say every PhD student necessarily needs two years of structured training. It will depend on the individual project and student.

Some projects can be very well suited to a students undergrad backround: The student may already have a reasonably good grounding in the theories/ experimental methods relevant to the research project in question. In this case there may well be little need for spoon feeding. However other projects can be more ambitious, multidisiplinary and as such have a much bigger learning curve. So I can see the value of a structured training progrma for these kinds of projects. There are quite a few new 4 year PhD programs in the UK which do incorperate a masters in the first year. so the funding bodies obviously recognise the vlaue of this approach

its a weak argument to say that everyone should be thrown into the deep and from day one in their PhD. Everyone needs spoon feeding to some extent or another. If this wasnt the case why bother with undergrad degrees just go striaght to PhD after secondary school

I'm just saying that to it seems e little bit exagerate to do two years of training, like in the USA, before starting your experiments. My experience is in biology so I don't want to generalize.
If you know a little bit the biology, as it assumed after a bachelor and a Master, you shouldn't need 2 years of training. So my question is: is it a so good idea to have short and basic exams in name of the University business? I can tell you that for example to prepare an exam of molecular biology you need at least one month after the end of the lessons(obtaining a basic preparation). So I can't believe that a student in the States or in the Uk nees just a week!!

So the challenge is : huge theoric preparation and poor practice VS very basic theoric preparation and a lot of practice.
My idea is that the university should mold thinking brains and not technicians. In theory the Academia is the palce of maximum culture. You need 1 day to learn how to do a PCR, but a life to learn something about science!

I rather suspect every student thinks the system they've got their degrees in is superior / tougher to everywhere else! My own view is that it's the student rather than the system that matters most in terms of outcomes. I've seen great and awful US, UK and German PhD theses - all passed the degree in very different systems but no system seems to give an absolute guarantee of quality.

Some of you guys had missed the point. I compared the PhD dissertations of two students in UK and Canada who undertook their degrees from the labs I am interested in. Both included 4-5 experiments as this is the norm in this field of study. the Canadian student done them all but the British one acknowledged at least 4-5 professors for doing parts of the experiments (not showing him how to do them). Also, they did him some modeling. This never happens in a Canadian University. Everything included in a dissertation is the work of the student. It might be complimentary to the work of your supervisor or mate but not their work. Subsequently, they might be published as one paper if we want an excellent journal (this actually happened in my lab; we published in Ecology).

^^ it's easy to miss the point if you don't fully explain. You have looked at two individual cases, but it varies...sometimes PhD researchers work as a team and then sometimes it's very independent. If you read some of the threads on here you'll see that many scientists are working completely alone on their research.

If your aim is to work totally with no team and/or not to be constricted by a particular topic then a British university will allow you to do this, but you are less likely to find funding. Most PhDs are funded, and many science PhDs are funded by money attached to a particular topic or centre/institute specialises in a niche area, so you don't have carte blanche over what you want to do. However, if you approach a university and say I want to reseach x, y and z, they'll quite happily welcome you with open arms if you foot the bill.

Try contacting some departments directly and tell them what you want to research, and if they can accommodate you as a completely independent researcher. However, you must have a good research proposal to gain a place, you can't just say I'm going to read for one year before discovering your research thesis/project.