Am I delusional to think I can aim for a PhD and become a professor or researcher?

But as it stands student finance only funds a bachelors (undergrad) degree and then up to £10k for postgraduate study.

Focus on getting into HE first.

I might be completely off, but if you are romanticising the idea of completing a PhD without even undertaking an undergraduate degree, then it's very likely that you currently want a PhD for the wrong reasons. A PhD is a lot of hard work and commitment, and you will only be able to complete it if you both excel in your chosen area and also have a passion for it.

My advice would be to buckle down and get into the best possible university for your undergrad. While completing your degree you will learn enough about your subject and post-graduate opportunities to know for sure if it is something that you want to pursue.

Don't think that you're not good enough, you're still exceptionally young. I will admit that you can normally tell within a 5 minute conversation if someone is bright enough to complete a PhD and excel in academia, and that has very little to do with grades. Some of people with the best grades in my graduation class failed to get post-graduate offers because although they were avid students who worked hard for exams, they didn't actually have a real grasp or deep understanding of the subject. This is something that lecturers/professors pick up on very quickly.

I've considered someday going for study in Germany where there aren't any degree fees, but I guess you'd need to be able to understand German.

Not necessarily.

However, you should not do a PhD if you are not being paid a salary (or stipend) to do so.

Not only is working for free a terrible decision financially, it is an indication of how much your employer values you. If your goal is to get a permanent job in academia, whether someone is willing to employ you on a short term basis on a lower salary is a good indication of how realistic that goal is.

If no one is willing to employ you as a PhD student then it is a good indication that no one will be willing to employ you as permanent research staff.

Actually, it's completely normal to get the fees paid and work part-time to cover living costs. Plenty of people do this and go on to secure jobs in academia. If you're holding out for all costs covered you may be waiting a long time... (particularly outside of the nat sciences, engineering, and medical research). If you do this the worst that could happen is that you worked in a boring job for a few years whilst getting your PhD (I mean it could go worse than that but just for illustration's sake... )

I'm surprised by how stern ppl's views are on PhDs. I mean, it's competitive and funding is hard get. It is, however, not impossible and if your have the right aptitudes and drive that puts you in a good position.

The worst that can happen is that you incur large direct financial costs, and opportunity costs of not earning in that time, in order to train for a job that you will not get. This is an enormous risk that very few people would consider acceptable in any other context.

In particular I would be interested to see numbers - percentage of self-funders who receive a permanent academic job with a middle class salary, and percentage of funded students who receive the same.


If you have high aptitude and drive you will be competitive for funding. Where do you think funding for permanent staff comes from? It comes from the same places as PhD funding. If you fall at the easy hurdles what makes you think you'll sail over the difficult ones?

Although I do not have the numbers - who does? - I can say with logical assurance that self-funding should not cause undue problems at a later stage.

One has to work with the reality; wiht PhD places that reality is currently that their a very few fully funded (fees + expenses) places

Huh? A cost exists regardless whether you can afford it. If you would have been 150k better off not doing a PhD, you are still out 150k even if you earned 200k in that time.


In and of itself, I agree. If a very strong student decided to self-fund for whatever reason, I do not believe it would put them at a disadvantage. However a very strong student would be very competitive for funding. It is like saying that going to a lower ranked university should not put you at a disadvantage provided you work hard and get a first - true as far as it goes, but the fact the students who go to lower ranked universities are not as good on average as those who go to higher ranked universities. Since an academic career is a gamble for anyone, not getting funding is a good early indication that your chances are low, an indication that you can use to guide your behaviour before you've lost too much time or money.


And what I am saying is that this means very few people should do PhDs.

According to your logic about earnings, one could perpetually be loosing out on millions of pounds until the point that one begins to earn these kind of figures. Imagine the millions you could therefore consider yourself to 'be down' in your lifetime be adopting this outlook. It's a fairly unescapable, trapping view.

I agree with what your observations about the relative difference in outlook at various institutions. I also agree with you that self-awareness is key at all times.

That said, I personally do not take the current number of available PhD places to be an authoritative indication of the numbers of able and willing candidates there are for doctoral study. That has to be established otherwise.

I prefer to form my overarching impressions not based on circumstances that may be resulting from underfunding of education and society, and the privatisation of universities... Consider that fact that society as a whole could benefit from a higher levels of education, thus promoting technology and culture.

Opportunity cost here means money that you could be earning right now but are choosing not to earn, not money you might earn in the future.

If you have a job that is paying you 20k/year part time and your manager is willing to let you go full time and earn 40k/year, your opportunity cost over the course of an 8 year part time PhD is 20*8=160k.

So the implicit cost of an unfunded PhD, even with fees paid and a secure part time job that is enough to cover your bills, is at least 160k in this situation

I don't think like this because I don't measure opportunity (or my life for that matter) in money...

Where does the concept of 'should' come from here?

Now, that is not say that everyone is able and willing to do a PhD. However, if one fulfils both of those criteria then a little persistance (especially given the adverse factors I have listed elsewhere in this thread) seems like a reasonable approach. Playing the odds in the probability game up to a point is no more ill-advised than applying for a range of jobs. Furthermore, doctoral study could help one to develop one's thinking, to network, collaborate, gain more understanding into oneself and the world, and may bear professional fruits immediately, at a later date, or imperceivably.

Fine. Note that you are not the OP and most people are motivated at least in part by money. Furthermore many other important aspects of life depend on money at least in part (e.g. ability to have a family).

In my opinion. You may disagree but, again, if a necessary assumption for disagreement is "Money is no object." you will find few sympathisers.

People should take the approach that is most likely to achieve their goals. If "Get a PhD." is a vital goal in and of itself, then one might not be phased by the problems I've raised. In that case fair enough. But the OP specifically wants to know about getting a permanent job as a researcher, for which a PhD is just a stepping stone.

If the options are 5% chance of a permanent job as a researcher, or 80% chance of employment in a traditional profession like nursing, engineering, accountancy, then maybe the latter looks better. I certainly don't agree that any approach that has any risk is essentially the same as any other approach that has any risk, regardless of the magnitude of that risk - otherwise buying a lot of lottery tickets should be viewed as a valid career plan!

Yes, well I wouldn't carry it to that extreme. Nor would I torment myself over 'income lost' (hypothetical, lost income that is) whilst I was working on PhD. As long as mine and my future family's material needs are fulfilled in the present moment - with a greater degree of stability once I have a family as far as possible - I will personally be content with that.

You generally cannot get a permanent job as a researcher without a PhD and so given OP's aspirations pursuing one may well be appropriate; tenure no longer exists in UK univs (and is is even being taken off many mid-career academics). Things to bear in mind. Anyway, I don't think we should speculate much more about OP's situation, not knowing endless things about his/ personal aptitudes.

I have been framing this in terms of risk/ benefit. I haveb't been saying that any risk= any risk. Rather, that there is an interplay of many factors to consider. Pretty similar to what you've been saying really - except that our political outlooks are clearly diverging a bit, which has been differently colouring the tone/ optimism present in our assessments.

I haven't said anything about tormenting.

I have said that if you forgo 20k per year for 8 years then your PhD has cost [at least] 160k. That is a fact. Now you may respond to that with, "My PhD was worth even more than that, so it was a good decision.", and I have not said that you shouldn't. But being completely unaware of this cost, intentionally or through ignorance, can well lead people to do PhDs they do not value at or above the actual cost.

I am not speculating - this is what the OP has clearly stated. The value of a PhD, in the sense of the OP's goals, is in its providing qualifications required to get a permanent researcher job. So the value of the PhD is directly connected to the likelihood of getting a permanent research job thereafter.

I haven't made any political statement, or any statement that would give you grounds for guessing my political views. Optimism is great if it is well founded, or at least if nothing can be done mitigate any risks. Using optimism as a reason to ignore real costs and avoidable risk is an easy way to make yourself less happy, not more.

Have you made many friends through remaining in university education for a very long time? How many years have you been at university now? I have many reasons for wanting to remain in education/be a student for as long as I'm able to, one being that I guess it'll just mean more people. I'd be likely to be far from alone if I stay in education for a long time.

I'm surprised by how stern ppl's views are on PhDs. I mean, it's competitive and funding is hard get. It is, however, not impossible and if your have the right aptitudes and drive that puts you in a good position.

Put simply, it's what you do during the PhD that matters most. Publications, conferences and networking are far and away more significant for your future career than whether you obtained funding. I'm partially funded (no stipend) and have noticed no difference between my fully self-funded colleagues and the fully funded ones. We all have the same record - 1st, prize, distinction, publication, etc. But not all of us are equal in networking ability and leveraging a job. Some of my fully funded colleagues are clueless on how important networking is, let alone how to go about it. You can, quite literally, have a job made for you under the wing of the right person. Academia is no different to any job in that regard.

I will make a final point, and perhaps this is what Observatory was saying to some extent (albeit with a focus on pecuniary gain that is mostly absent from academia relative to other careers). The types of people who fail to get stipends tend to be the types of people who fail to break into academia. This is not to say that full funding is required for your CV as a prerequisite for academia, but that those who tend to understand netoworking and maximising application success and accumulating publications/talks, also tend to acquire full funding.

We all have the same record - 1st, prize, distinction, publication, etc.

I will make a final point, and perhaps this is what Observatory was saying to some extent (albeit with a focus on pecuniary gain that is mostly absent from academia relative to other careers). The types of people who fail to get stipends tend to be the types of people who fail to break into academia. This is not to say that full funding is required for your CV as a prerequisite for academia, but that those who tend to understand netoworking and maximising application success and accumulating publications/talks, also tend to acquire full funding. In my case, I know it will make no difference if I have the stipend on my CV. Publications and networking secures jobs in academia, first and foremost.

This is what I am saying.

I think pessimism is appropriate because most people approach academia with unjustified optimism.
...
Many people considering self-funding are doing so because they do not have this profile.