YOU have sat through the lectures, slaved over the essays, slogged through the lab work and swotted for the exams. Now you are within sight of graduation and your escape into the ârealâ world. Why would you want to stay a student for another three years?
The answer is simple. Doing a PhD is a million miles from the constraints of a first degree, and itâs a guaranteed way of getting stuck into some real science. You will be in charge of your own research project on a topic of your choice, perhaps gaining valuable experience by working with industry, and you will manage your own time.
It could do your career a world of good as well. Recruiters in pharmaceuticals, IT and other high-tech industries will be impressed by your extra qualification. âMany industries want someone with a doctorate who has shown that they can work independently, and that they can manage a project,â says Mary Bownes, vice-principal of the graduate school at the University of Edinburgh. âThey like the kind of skills that students develop in the course of a PhD.â
Advertisement
Yet a doctorate is no guarantee of a better salary than a graduate degree when you enter the world of work. So why bother? The answer is simple, says Jamie Platts, who got his chemistry doctorate from Cardiff University in 1996 and now supervises his own PhD students in the same department. âIf youâre in it for the money, donât do a PhD.â Itâs all about intellectual curiosity, not pounds and pence.
Money talks
But money on a studentship is not nearly as tight as it used to be. âWhen I was doing mine it was very financially challenging,â says Platts. âThings have got a lot better since then.â Much of the impetus for improvement came from a damning report for the government in 2002 by Gareth Roberts, a professor and former director of research at Thorn EMI, which identified low stipends as one of the reasons fewer top graduates were applying for studentships.
Roberts recommended the research councils, the government bodies that fund research, raise stipends to the average graduate starting salary, with variations to attract students in areas where there is a shortfall, such as physics and chemistry. The councils have risen to the challenge, announcing inflation-busting stipends for 2004-05 of ÂŁ10,500, rising to ÂŁ12,000 in 2005-06, with an extra top-up for projects based in London. These are all tax-free. Students can supplement this income by working as a lab demonstrator in undergraduate practicals, and occasionally taking tutorials, for around ÂŁ10 per hour, up to about 180 hours a year.
Cutting it
But how do you know if you are cut out for the life of a PhD student? Your undergraduate research project should give a flavour of what it will be like, but what really counts is being fired up by the idea of doing research and pushing back the boundaries of scientific knowledge. âIf you havenât got enthusiasm and curiosity for your subject you wonât survive,â says Bownes. âPeople need to be self-motivated to get through. Theyâll get a lot support and guidance, but ultimately the person doing it really has to want to do it.â
And it wonât be the end of the world if after a few months you discover you have made the wrong decision. Doctoral students are often allowed to bail out before the end of their first year without any financial penalty. In your undergraduate coursework, if you do everything right then things usually turn out OK. As a postgrad, itâs different. âSome very clever students find that in a real lab, experiments sometimes just donât work,â says Bownes. Provided the first year isnât up, they can just walk away. âItâs not considered a failure.â
Paul Wood, graduate dean at the University of Bristol, reckons that between 5 and 10 per cent of PhD students drop out before the end of the first year at Bristol. âItâs a big change, and some find that itâs not what they are cut out for.â But he points out that they neednât go away empty-handed if they write up their research to get a masterâs qualification instead.
The minimum entry requirement for a PhD studentship funded by a research council is an upper second class degree (a 2:1), or failing that a masterâs in the appropriate subject (see âYour own masterâsâ). Some departments take graduates with a 2:2 who have a few years of laboratory experience, though they need to demonstrate exceptional promise.
Take the plunge
If you already know the field you want to investigate, then itâs a question of finding a university with a reputation and expertise in that area. Look at university departmentsâ websites to see what research they are doing and what projects are available before emailing the relevant researcher to make further enquiries.
PhD projects take many different forms. Some have a definite goal, such as to develop a particular product. Others are more open-ended â to explore the scientific foundations of a particular technology, for instance. Think about which approach would suit you best before applying. When you are ready to take the plunge, requests for application forms must be made to the universityâs graduate admissions office, not to the body funding the project.
Now comes the tricky bit: the interview. Make sure you have read any relevant research papers beforehand. You are bound to be asked about your undergraduate project, so be ready to discuss that in depth too and explain how the techniques and lessons learned could be applied to a PhD. âI would recommend having a set of intelligent questions to ask the panel at the end of the interview,â says Laura-Anne Brown, a first-year PhD student at the University of Leeds. âAnd not just âHow much money will I get?'â
You will come across several different kinds of doctoral studentship. The standard is a three-year course with no industrial collaboration. Then there the two kinds of Cooperative Awards in Science and Engineering (CASE) studentships. Both involve working in partnership with a company and are supervised jointly by an academic and a company supervisor. With a Research CASE studentship it is the academic who comes up with the idea for the project. In Industrial CASE studentships, the company takes the initiative in determining the research topic and establishing a link with a particular university. In both cases, students spend at least three months working in the companyâs labs, building up all-important industrial experience. In return, the company supplements the studentâs stipend. These top-ups vary widely, with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council specifying a minimum of ÂŁ1000 and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council specifying ÂŁ2760.
Extra skills
The research councils allocate a quota of studentships to each university department, or earmark funding for a particular researcher. More recently, some councils have given departments greater flexibility to determine how many studentships they offer, the period of study and the level of stipend, by dishing out a single dollop of money known as a Doctoral Training Account. For example, some departments are using a DTA to offer the option of a four-year award, starting with a âtraining yearâ of taught courses and research projects before the traditional three-year PhD project.
This kind of training in transferable skills has become very fashionable. In his 2002 report, Roberts criticised universities for failing to equip students with the skills they need for a career in business R&D. He identified this failure as one of the reasons some employers were paying newly qualified PhDs no more than they would a new graduate. The universities have taken the criticism on board and now offer courses in skills such as time management, computing, communication and writing. At the moment the courses are voluntary, but in future they may be made compulsory for students who need help in particular areas.
So universities seem to be taking more seriously their obligations to nurture postgrads. But supposing you end up with the supervisor from hell? żìĂš¶ÌÊÓÆ” heard of one student who complained that his supervisor was keen to help out with any research paper that would have his name on it but lost interest when it came to the studentâs thesis. Another common complaint from students is that their supervisor is never around. For those who run into problems, most university departments now have formal complaints procedures. At Bristol, for example, each student is allocated a âco-assessorâ in a different lab who they can turn to if there is a problem. Departments have a vested interest in ensuring that their students complete their PhDs because every two or three years the research councils take this into account when reassessing their funding. âIf we just abandon them and they donât write up, then we wonât get any more students,â says Paul Wood.
Writes and wrongs
âWriting upâ is something else that scares off potential doctoral students. Supposing, through no fault of your own, your experiments go horribly wrong, or after three years of hard slog your hypothesis collapses? Welcome to the world of the research scientist. Thatâs how it works. But donât despair â negative results can be just as valuable to the scientific enterprise as positive ones. âItâs definitely an important part of a PhD to have some failures,â says Kevin Shakesheff, professor of tissue engineering at the University of Nottingham. âIn fact, the worst thing than can happen during a PhD is for every experiment to give the results you expected.â The good news is that you are not going to be denied a doctorate because the project did not go to plan.
Some bad luck in your PhD neednât be the end of your research career either. When appointing postdoctoral researchers, Shakesheff says he is more interested in how students approached a problem, rather than the discoveries they made. âYou can tell the people who set up a logical plan and saw that plan through,â he says. But, he cautions, higher up the academic ladder a researcher will ultimately be judged on their output of scientific papers â a fact often forgotten when faced with the daunting task of writing a thesis.
If three more years behind the university gates sounds like an opportunity, not a life sentence, then whatâs stopping you?
Your own masterâs
TAKING an MSc can help you decide whether to go the whole hog and do a PhD. It is like an hors dâoeuvre, whetting the appetite and giving a hint of whatâs to come. Or it could provide the training needed to move into a specialist job. A biochemist, for example, could do a conversion course in forensic science. And if you want to do a PhD but only got a 2:2, a masterâs can be your gateway.
Like a PhD, a masterâs is an introduction to the real, sometimes messy, world of the research scientist. âStudents discover that there not a clear-cut right answer to every question,â says Simon Braddy, an MSc tutor in earth sciences at the University of Bristol. âThey have to learn how to use their initiative, develop a hypothesis and test it.â Around one-third of MSc students in his department go on to do a PhD.
Masterâs degrees now come in a range of flavours. In the traditional MSc course, students spend up to six months on a research project â it can be proposed by the student or chosen ready-made from a list â and the remainder on coursework. Alternatively, thereâs the newer Masterâs in Research, with a stronger emphasis on learning through research projects.
Funding may, however, be a problem. A one-year course costs around ÂŁ3000, plus living expenses, and the chances are your local education authority will not pick up the bill for course fees, let alone maintenance. The research councils â goverment bodies who control the cash for research â fund some industry-related courses, but not those in purely academic fields such as Braddyâs subject â palaeobiology. Students on these courses often use a career development loan from the government (). Repayment on such loans can be spread over three years.
The student
Paul Wilson, electrical and electronic engineering, Queenâs University Belfast
Why did you opt for a PhD?
My prime motivation wasnât simply to get another certificate to hang on the wall but to work on the particular project the research covers.
So what is your project?
Iâm collaborating with a company called Randox on a lab-on-a-chip for diagnosing heart attacks. I do the data-processing. When someone has a heart attack their cardiac cells start to die and telltale chemicals leach into the bloodstream. Most hospitals look for one or two but our chip measures five. I boil those numbers down. So, for example, the chip would tell the doctor there was a 90 per cent chance the guy has had a heart attack and needs urgent treatment, or there is an 8 per cent chance he had a strong curry last night and thatâs why heâs not feeling well.
Was the transition from undergraduate life difficult?
Probably the biggest shock is managing your own time, which Iâm really bad at. And also the slow pace. As an undergraduate you get everything handed to you on a plate. You just turn up at lectures and in a way the lecturer has already done all the hard work â got all the information, reduced it down and given it to you in a digestible form. With a PhD, you have to go away and find out things for yourself. That takes time. And you come up against a lot of dead ends.
Whatâs the best thing about doing a PhD?
Getting to work on an interesting, important project. On top of that thereâs the freedom. You are halfway between the undergraduate lifestyle and having a job. You can do your own thing.
Is money tight?
Iâm happy to be doing something I enjoy, as long as the money is enough to live on â which it is. As an undergrad I was living on around ÂŁ5000 a year, and when I took my masters the stipend was ÂŁ6000. Now the PhD stipend is going up to ÂŁ12,000. With extra work doing demonstrations and the top-up from my Cooperative Award in Science and Engineering, Iâm getting around ÂŁ15,000 with no tax or national insurance. Thatâs more than enough to live on.
Howâs it going with your supervisor?
One of the things I didnât realise before I started is just how important your supervisor is. A PhD is quite solitary work, and the supervisor is your one link with the outside world. There seem to be two types. There are those who were doing a PhD themselves not so many years ago; they seem to be fairly clued up on the technical stuff. Or you may have someone like my own supervisor, George Irwin, who may not be able to give you so much help on the technical side but is a bit more mature and has a lot more connections. Because George has had so many students in the past he has a very good idea of whatâs required.
The supervisor
George Irwin, professor of electrical and electronic engineering, Queenâs University Belfast
Why would anyone want to do a PhD?
Iâm going to give you a very old-fashioned answer: I think you do it because youâre interested. Itâs a personal challenge. Many potential students get hooked through an undergraduate project: they get to use expensive equipment and work alongside PhD students, which lets them see what the life is like.
What do you tell undergrads who are considering it?
I tell them itâs going to be difficult. Thereâs no easy ride on a PhD. Itâs the hardest thing youâll do, but it can be the most rewarding when you finally start cracking things and getting results.
Wouldnât they be earning more by going straight into industry?
If someone says, âIâm not getting as much money as I would in industry,â then I say to them, âWell, you should go and work in industry.â If your prime motivator is money you shouldnât do a PhD.
Does industry need people with doctorates?
Industry is looking for similar skills to those needed to do a PhD. Companies are not just looking for academic excellence, they are also interested in personal skills such as drive, initiative, stickability and the ability to manage time. And virtually everything our department does is linked to industry in some way. It all starts with someone saying âCan you help us out with this?â but it could end with a spin-off company. A PhD is far from being an academic dead end.
In your field, do a lot of students go on to become academics?
I can only think of a couple of guys who did it to go into academia. I wish there were more!