Masters /PhD - have things changed?

[Greatauntdymphna]

When I went to uni - 30+ years ago - one of my friends stayed to do a PhD and I knew 2 other people who moved to my uni to do a PhD. None of them had done a masters.
I also knew one person who moved to my uni to do a masters (who then didn't do a PhD).
When I talk to DC it seems that they are under the impression that it's hard to get to do a PhD without a masters first.
Is that now the case? (Was it always the case and I just knew some people who did things unusually?)
Or do my children have the wrong end of the stick?

What is your DC's overall ambition? Lifetime at UNi or authorship?
How do they see their career developing?
Have they a specific topic in mind for the PhD? If so look into the ones on similar subjects that have been produced. They are all out there and available to read. Compare how the the subject is covered.

@Celiamary

What is your DC's overall ambition? Lifetime at UNi or authorship? How do they see their career developing? Have they a specific topic in mind for the PhD? If so look into the ones on similar subjects that have been produced. They are all out there and available to read. Compare how the the subject is covered.

Nowhere near making any of the decisions about topics as only in first year. I think their supervisor has been really inspiring - professor who has written books on his subject - and that has made the prospect of that sort of life very aspirational. But, as I say, it's very early days to even be thinking about it....

Option nowadays to also do an integrated master. See this example of a history one.

So, a four year undergraduate course, rather than three years. Can beuseful to consider, as Student Finance would obviously be based on 4 years from start.

be useful*

I think DC is already at uni. I would not expect to follow in the footsteps of a starry lecturer either. Keep options wide open and get work experience. Or volunteer. Don’t get sucked in to academia with poor job prospects.

I think this is something of an Arts/Sciences split.

Undoubtedly. There are probably many reasons for the various differences - much scientific research needs teams of people at various levels, some projects will attract industry funding. And I'm sure there are a heck of a lot more science jobs outside of academia which have a doctorate (if not post doc experience) as the entry level qualification than for other fields.

Do people doing PhDs all want to be academics and remain in universities? That's certainly not true of my DD, who is currently applying for PhDs, she wants to do one because she thinks it will be necessary for her chosen career path at some point. Maybe that's part of the Arts/Sciences split too.

And even if they do, do they want to teach? Not all PhDs require this, and a lot of PhD students I know consider it a necessary evil rather than an objective!

@thing47
She’s a scientist though. As others have explained that’s different. History, MFL, English, archaeology, Philosophy, Ckassycs, Anthropology, Sociology, etc - how many PhDs do we need? Where else do they work other than in academia/teaching or museums? I cannot see what they bring to many other jobs where professional qualifications are the goal and take years to acquire. The PhD would be merely for interest and you would not earn more for having it.

@TizerorFizz

I don’t think it is fair to argue cheap labour is needed and then complain you cannot get employment *@SarahAndQuack*. Yes there needs to be a change. When I did a HNC in the dark ages, all our lecturers were full time. They didn’t all have Doctorates though. Some had professional qualifications topped up by teaching qualifications and fantastic work experience. They were brilliant and they taught the degree courses too. So many PhD students appear to want to be academics but then don’t get jobs I accept there needs to be change and the obvious answer is fewer universities. (See other long running thread). Then there’s room for PhD students as academics and others without PhDs who are still fantastic lecturers.

I don't follow you?

Why is it not fair?

I don't quite get the distinction you're making between lecturers with PhDs and without. Do you imagine I'm refusing to do those less well paid jobs? I assure you that isn't the case. I've done them. But, I am 37 with a young child. I can't afford it any more. And there is a large supply of 30 year olds who will happily earn an amount that's only liveable for a childless person, for a couple of years. So the system survives.

@thing47

Do people doing PhDs all want to be academics and remain in universities? That's certainly not true of my DD, who is currently applying for PhDs, she wants to do one because she thinks it will be necessary for her chosen career path at some point. Maybe that's part of the Arts/Sciences split too.

And even if they do, do they want to teach? Not all PhDs require this, and a lot of PhD students I know consider it a necessary evil rather than an objective!

Definitely an arts/sciences split.

There are loads of brilliant jobs to do with a History PhD, but ideally, one would want to start thinking through them early on.

Anyone who wants to go into academia in History will need to teach, and to that and a lot of things fast, because it is such a competitive field. There isn't so much of a safety net in terms of postdocs.

[quote TizerorFizz]@thing47
She’s a scientist though. As others have explained that’s different. History, MFL, English, archaeology, Philosophy, Ckassycs, Anthropology, Sociology, etc - how many PhDs do we need? Where else do they work other than in academia/teaching or museums? I cannot see what they bring to many other jobs where professional qualifications are the goal and take years to acquire. The PhD would be merely for interest and you would not earn more for having it.[/quote]
Good question. I've no idea how many we need. I certainly don't think having a PhD makes you a good teacher/lecturer, those are very different skillsets, I would say. They might go hand in hand, but not necessarily. Doing a PhD merely for interest is absolutely fine, as long as you have realistic expectations afterwards, and that it doesn't automatically increase your earning potential.

@thing47
I have no doubt PhD students are useful and necessary for science.

However academics in universities need them too. Universities need them too but then don’t employ them. So careers stop progressing.,So all these students do PhDs, do a bit of teaching and then what? It’s just been a paid hobby phd if there’s no career at the end of it.

I didn’t go to university and I worked. I think it’s quite a luxury to do a doctorate in history. I always needed money. I needed to know where my career could go. Time for a career change if anyone cannot get a job to support themselves in their late 30s. Can’t put the clock back but time for a change.

[quote TizerorFizz]@thing47
I have no doubt PhD students are useful and necessary for science.

However academics in universities need them too. Universities need them too but then don’t employ them. So careers stop progressing.,So all these students do PhDs, do a bit of teaching and then what? It’s just been a paid hobby phd if there’s no career at the end of it.

I didn’t go to university and I worked. I think it’s quite a luxury to do a doctorate in history. I always needed money. I needed to know where my career could go. Time for a career change if anyone cannot get a job to support themselves in their late 30s. Can’t put the clock back but time for a change.[/quote]
Depends how you understand luxury. It doesn't pay masses. (I don't think it should pay masses, btw; I'm just saying that PhD stipends are not that high.)

DS is doing a PhD in a non science subject.

I assume in theory you could go straight from a Bachelors to PhD, however funded places are very competitive and you would be on the backfoot if you did not already have your degree results. Also a Masters will give you important dissertation and other skills.

Even then a one years Masters can be extremely busy and it is quite hard to balance that with PhD applications. A post Masters application year is apparently quite common. DS decided to make a few applications during his Masters year, partly as a trial run, and was lucky enough to get two offers. He was also offered a one year Research Assistant job with an Ivy League Professor which would have made a good platform for a wide range of PhD applications.

His choice was then whether to stay in the UK or accept a US offer. Apparently this is more or less a no brainer. The UK PhD takes less time and, oddly, pays better as teaching/research work is paid on top, whereas it forms part of the contract in the US. However he was advised that overseas experience is seen as important if considering an academic/research career.

He has funding for six years. The first two years were taught, essentially a Masters, then three years research, and a ‘job market’ year. The job market is hugely competitive and I understand that even though last year his University had a good year in placing PhDs, many (most?) may have to spend a year or two post doc before landing a permanent position.

A friend of DDs is wanting to take a PhD in history. I think she has just completed her Masters and is, in similar fashion, focusing on US applications.

Advice for a first year student wanting to keep doors open:

1. Work hard!
2. Engage. Attend office hours. Read any extra material suggested. Attend lectures and be ready to as pertinent questions. References are important and the better an academic knows you, the more detailed any reference might be.
3. Depending on where you are taking your first degree, consider ‘trading up’ for your Masters to somewhere more recognisable.
4. Talk a lot to third year, Masters and PhD students. DS picked up some really useful mentoring. These are the people, along with academics, who know how the system works. There are also websites like grad cafe.

Is it a paid hobby? I’m not sure it matters. DS was always studious and he seems to be in his element. He may end up taking the sort of job he could have got with a bachelors or a masters, but his experience won’t be wasted and he will have more to bring to the table.

I think economics and similar are STEM really. Definitely not the same as English and Anthropology. DD wax asked if she wanted to do a masters in the poetry of the crusades. She didn’t and wanted a career in law. She didn’t have 6 years to study something she wasn’t going to work in. At 29 she’s earning multiples of academics and she’s happy. Doing a PhD that’s a personal luxury is fine if it makes you happy. Expecting highly paid work at the end is another matter.

I think it's sensible to choose a career you want, as your DD did. But imagine if your DD had been told that getting a highly-paid career in law is extremely competitive? And she could give it a go, do her training, but realistically, only perhaps 1 in 5 of her coursemates would actually get that coveted highly-paid job.

Well, of course, you'd ask yourself what other jobs the other 4 in 5 might get, and you'd ask what that person who's the 1 in 5 would need to do to give themselves the best shot.

Then imagine you do the training, and someone says, sorry Tizer'sDD, during the time you were training, things changed. Now it's more like 1 in 50 who get that job, and you're not one of them - but do you want to do this short-term, low-paid option that will jazz up your CV and make you a competitive candidate for that job you wanted? You do? Fab!

Then you do that, and again it's sorry Tizer'sDD, things changed again. You're back to having a 1 in 50 chance again.

That is what is happening in academia at the moment, on repeat. It's not something totally predictable - IME, people thought academia was bad ten years ago, but didn't expect it to get this bad.

My understanding, though I am no expert is that STEM is quite different in that PhDs are often linked to research projects and funding. My understanding was that others subjects, and DS has a friend taking a PhD in psychology, allow more choice in subject material. (And indeed behavioural economics gets very close to psychology, in the way that some economics is very close to history.)

However do correct me if I am wrong and that the structure of some social science PhDs resembles STEM more.

MN tends to focus on salaries, and to grant audios to high earners. I suspect many considering PhDs are content to earn enough to keep the wolf from the door and do not expect highly paid work at the end. Academia/research strikes me as quite a vocational thing. DS enjoys studying. He has no interest in banking or law. Each to their own.

Absolutely Needmoresleep. MN seems to obsess about salaries. Almost all the Oxbridge threads during the admissions rounds tend to get reduced to never mind, top employers are recruiting university blind or never mind I know lawyers who didn't go to Oxbridge etc. Almost no discussion about whether an applicant might fancy Oxford or Cambridge because they actually want to learn about the subject they applied for in a particular way, or even whether they want to go there for the vibe. It just seems all to be about jobs, in particular City law and finance. You've got to feel sorry for the tutors tbh.

Surely there's got to be an argument - even for those not cushioned by a moneyed backgrounds - to want to do a job they actually enjoy, even if it doesn't buy a fab house, private education, big foreign holidays etc? If the job you enjoy happens to be City law then win, win, but there are far more interesting jobs than there are huge salaries.

DD2 had an ESRC scholarship for her History PhD which paid fees and living, on a budget. She did do a Masters first.

@goodbyestranger
The discussion earlier was about PhD students ending up not having university jobs despite being in their late 30s. It appears to be hugely difficult. Some, as I said earlier, actively want this but others need the money but cannot get a permanent position . It wasn’t about great wealth it was just about getting a job!

Sorry about the autocorrect. Kudos, not audios.

There is quite a public sector tradition in my family and both DC are likely to follow. Some of their peers have gone into tech jobs or finance and are already looking at buying London flats. We are content that, though neither will earn much before the age of 30, and indeed will both need to be mobile till then, they seem to enjoy what they are doing and, being fairly frugal, don't seem to have problems with money.

Our DC only have one life. Of course jobs, salaries etc are important, but they should balance this to give themselves the best chance of enjoying what they do.

Years ago I knew someone who gave up a very well paid job to go to University for a degree and Masters. We lost touch, though I occasionally searched Fb wondering where she was. Finally today I read an interview with her, using her married name, and she has had a stellar career and now sits in the House of Lords along with some important and influential positions. I suspect some of the jobs on the way may not have paid well but she followed her instinct and it has clearly paid off. DC need to be realistic. It is a tough world out there, but there is a lot to be said for prioritising interest and satisfaction over money.

I agree, there are lots of possible motivations beyond money, all equally valid. I don't value people based on what they earn, I think it's far more important to do something you really enjoy and as @goodbyestranger says if that happens to pay well, great, but it's not the be-all and end-all for everyone.

DD got the opportunity to undertake cutting-edge, original research during her Masters; she loved and now she'd like to do more of it. To me, that seems like a valid option for the next three years of her life – lots of people change jobs within that time period, I don't really see it as any different. She has no specific expectations, financial or otherwise, post-PhD (if she gets one), she just wants to do something she loves.

Depends on subject, but yes, even 20 yrs ago in my scientific field a large number of people did a masters and then a PhD and it was hard to go straight to PhD even after a 4 year undergrad course.

Tizer yes that's what the discussion was about but it moved on slightly. The original question was actually about the need for a Masters for anyone wanting to do a PhD not about the intrinsic value of a PhD. But I don't want to rehash every twist and turn :)

• ..for anyone wanting to do a History PhD.

Although I see that I didn't make it at all clear that I was arguing for pursuing a poorly paid PhD and a poorly paid contract to contract academic career if that's what you most want to do.