[choco_latte]

I made a mess of a masters degree (Bioinformatics), and need to guage how much damage has been done. I need advice as to whether I should bother with PHD applications, or concentrate elsewhere.

The good:
*BEng Electronics @ 2.1, good references
*2 years work experience (engineering grad scheme etc).
*Okay A levels in math/science Bs, Cs.

The bad:
*Failed 30% of masters classes, now passed and capped @ 50%
*Pass grade overall, at 60% on the dot.
*Good project grade but poor relationship with supervisor
*Unlikely to get a positive reference from anyone

I want to apply for bioinformatics PHDs in genetic epidemiology or genomics. Preference for joining an established research group with a clear plan, or 4year.

Given my messy transcript and lack of references, what are the constraints on my application? How can I make it look better?

[Ghost6]

You will need references to apply. You can't apply to anything without 2 to 3 references. If you are really set on a PhD I suppose you could end up somewhere, but a PhD is only really indispensable if you want to join academia and for that it really, really helps to attend a top 10 department. Don't bother doing a PhD outside of the top 50, you will never land any significant academic job unless you make a major breakthrough in your field. Also, never pay a PhD out of your own pocket, no matter what some people may tell you. Given your patchy academic record I would rather find a job, engineers can make some serious dough.

[choco_latte]

Thankyou Ghost, kind and probably good advice.
I do enjoy this field a lot, and it seems a shame to give up.

But you are correct, there is a risk of cornering myself with bad decisions. Already, I have reduced my employability somewhat with that masters - I have a couple of years experience, so engineering employers don't even ask about the grade, but it has put rust on my skills, and made my CV look strange. To spend 3 or 4 years on a PHD would be to commit away from engineering, to a very uncertain end.
One to sleep on I think.

[Cora Lindsay]

(Original post by Ghost6)
.......a PhD is only really indispensable if you want to join academia......

Not in my world. I deal with industry, Government and regulators both in the UK and overseas, and most people I come across have a PhD. Some areas of engineering (civil, mechanical, chemical) are probably the exception. You find a fair number of PhDs in those areas, but also a fair number of people without.

(Original post by Ghost6)
...for that it really, really helps to attend a top 10 department. Don't bother doing a PhD outside of the top 50......

This is much too sweeping a statement- do you mean top 10, top 50 in the UK, Europe, worldwide? You also totally ignore the granularity of the research landscape, but you know that a lot of people here disagree with you, and I can't be bothered to rehearse those arguments again.

(Original post by Ghost6)
You will need references to apply. You can't apply to anything without 2 to 3 references.

Here we agree. Are there particular circumstances which affected your Masters performance (health, personal, whatever?), and do you have a reasonably friendly referee from your Masters who could write a reference which explained what had gone wrong? Simply not having a reference from the Masters programme would be odd and if you choose to do that, you need to explain clearly why in your application

[Ghost6]

(Original post by choco_latte)
Already, I have reduced my employability somewhat with that masters

I don't think the masters can hurt you when looking for a job, it can only help you over a B.S. degree alone. The loss is in terms of time, forgone experience and income, and of course money, unless you got a full scholarship for your masters covering living costs and tuition. (But that seems extremely rare.)

[Ghost6]

(Original post by Cora Lindsay)
Not in my world. I deal with industry, Government and regulators both in the UK and overseas, and most people I come across have a PhD.

Because you come across people with PhDs outside of academia does not mean their job requires a PhD. Some do, but most people starting PhDs only consider these jobs after they graduate and realize that the academic job market is saturated in their field or see that they would be making 1/3 of what they would working for a corporation. Of course this is just statistically speaking.

[Cora Lindsay]

(Original post by Ghost6)
Because you come across people with PhDs outside of academia does not mean their job requires a PhD. Some do, but most people starting PhDs only consider these jobs after they graduate and realize that the academic job market is saturated in their field or see that they would be making 1/3 of what they would working for a corporation. Of course this is just statistically speaking.

These people fill technical and research roles in areas like defence, security, energy, Government, regulators and PhD level qualification is a pre-requisite, often with significant postdoc experience as well.

Most of our PhD students and postdocs do not aspire to go into academia (it's always a question we ask at interview) but see the position as a necessary qualification for their preferred career path.

Of course, our experience may just be an outlier, statistically speaking, but I do think you need to be careful in making generalisations

[sj27]

(Original post by Ghost6)
Because you come across people with PhDs outside of academia does not mean their job requires a PhD. Some do, but most people starting PhDs only consider these jobs after they graduate and realize that the academic job market is saturated in their field or see that they would be making 1/3 of what they would working for a corporation. Of course this is just statistically speaking.

Different field, but what do you make of the large number of private sector/ think tank/international organisation economist/policy jobs in the US that require a PhD?

[UAC]

Most specialist jobs state implicitly that they "require a masters or a phd" in the subject (or a related discipline). A masters is seen as necessary, but not sufficient for entering the position. A PhD, likewise, with no experience, may place you in the same category as a person with a masters and no-experience (but slightly above). The difference is the level of experience the person has obtained.

As for your masters results. I'm sure that 66% overall is enough to get into a PhD program. However, the determining factor is not your marks, however average they may seem, the determining factor is your research proposal or statement of intent. If you have a research proposal that is unique ad contributes to the field in a way that's not being pursued at the moment, then you could potentially find yourself being admitted, even with all the above.

[Ethic811W]

If you are struggling with an Masters; why would you want something more demanding, harder?. Your required to have a good grade from your Masters to be accepted into the PH.D for a good reason. You need to be reasonable with your expectations.

[Ghost6]

(Original post by Ethic811W)
If you are struggling with an Masters; why would you want something more demanding, harder?. Your required to have a good grade from your Masters to be accepted into the PH.D for a good reason. You need to be reasonable with your expectations.

Yes, admissions will pay close attention to your grades in graduate coursework as a means of selecting candidates, but successful completion of a PhD requires somewhat different skills than being a good student. Essentially, any taught degree boils down to memorizing facts (such as definitions or equations) together with a procedure to use those facts, e.g. solving a problem or writing some text including references to the memorized stuff. A PhD dissertation should include original material so it isn't exactly the same skills that are needed and this is why sometimes you will see apparently average students get into the top programs because of strong recommendations emphasizing their potential in research.

[Nathanielle]

(Original post by Cora Lindsay)
These people fill technical and research roles in areas like defence, security, energy, Government, regulators and PhD level qualification is a pre-requisite, often with significant postdoc experience as well.

Most of our PhD students and postdocs do not aspire to go into academia (it's always a question we ask at interview) but see the position as a necessary qualification for their preferred career path.

Of course, our experience may just be an outlier, statistically speaking, but I do think you need to be careful in making generalisations

But you have to admit that this a very special field and a PHD often the only possibility for some of these positions to gain the knowlegde, as Master or even Bachelor programs for these very specialised topics are very rare. On the other hand these posts are rare and under high competition. (Not neglecting that in some countries a PHD becomes only the next degree somebody has to take, instead of a choice, somebody makes one his own.)

Thus in your first post, exspecially as the Thread Starter is an Engineer, the hint was while not entirely fault, simply not important for the majority of graduates. (For most Engineers International Relations are as nerdy and weired, as for Politic students Engineering.)

@TO:
In addition when you compare PHD positions with Master graduates, who have professional experience instead of a a PHD, the difference in the earnings is less impressive, as a PHD graduate is older when coming into his first really good paid position. But your choice seems quite special and when you really want to get into research/academia, then a PHD may be really a nice thing to do and you will have it probably easier than someone who wants to end up in researching Polish literature. Good luck with your decision!

[poohat]

(Original post by sj27)
Different field, but what do you make of the large number of private sector/ think tank/international organisation economist/policy jobs in the US that require a PhD?

Usually these are people who couldnt get good academic positions; US academia pays very well in economics ($100-120k for a starting lecturer in a top 50 econ department, and nearer $200k if you are in a finance department or a business school) and wall street obviously pays even more. Policy work is usually viewed as second tier; you would rarely find PhD students from top programs like Harvard/MIT in those jobs unless they joined in senior positions, late in their careers.

You can look at Harvard econ placements here if you dont believe me; 90% get faculty positions, and a few take wall street jobs or go to the Fed:

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fil...-2010-2011.pdf
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fil...-2009-2010.pdf
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fil...-2008-2009.pdf


edit: Quant finance is probably a better example since physics/maths PhDs have much worse career prospects than economists and quant'ing is the only way they are likely to get a 6 figure salary, but even then I think most people would take a permanent academic job in a top department over private sector work if they were offered both; the main drawback of academia is the lack of jobs, and how awful it is in some fields at the lower levels (eg 3+ years of low-paid postdoc work in lab science with no guarantee of a job afterwards). Top hedge funds are an exception though, and can often attract first rate people.

[Ghost6]

(Original post by poohat)
Quant finance is probably a better example since physics/maths PhDs have much worse career prospects than economists and quant'ing is the only way they are likely to get a 6 figure salary, but even then in my experience the best people usually take academic jobs instead if they can get them. Top hedge funds are an exception and can often attract first rate people.

Career prospects for math and physics aren't that much worse and very few academics, even economists, will start making 6 figures after their PhD in academia. Some will, but that really concerns the very top students of top 5 departments. Most PhD economists will not make significantly more than math/physics PhDs and they actually have worse profiles for quantitative finance than most math PhDs.

As I said, most PhD grads will try to stay in academia because no other job pays this much per hour of work. And no other job comes close when it comes to vacation and all paid for trips to attend conferences and such. And senior academics and good universities easily make six figures too. Sure you will not be making millions but you get to sleep in most mornings.

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by choco_latte)
Given my messy transcript and lack of references, what are the constraints on my application? How can I make it look better?

Get a job in the field based on your previous experience and Masters degree. Carve out a professional career and consider going for a PhD if/when required/wanted based on your professional experience.

You might find somewhere that will let you pay for a PhD, but you aren't going to be a competitive PhD candidate on the basis of that Masters pedigree. It doesn't matter why or what circumstances created your Masters record. If you are only operating at 60% at Masters level, there is no magic that is going to make you entry PhD level standard (which is often considered to be 67% at Masters), just because you make an application and get an offer.

People often go all soft and gooey about mitigating circumstances, and to be sure, sometimes life crashes down around people's ears. Although it has to be said that quite often people aren't coping academically and then illness and thus mitigation are effect, not cause. However, there is a limit to what mitigation admissions staff can allow. If someone is more than 1 or 2% off the base entry criteria, then cp, in many cases you are setting them up to fail if you allow them to take up a place. It is simply unethical to allow people very wide margins of mitigation.

tl;dr Step out of academia, make your mark professionally, and consider your situation in 5 years time.

[sj27]

(Original post by poohat)
Usually these are people who couldnt get good academic positions; US academia pays very well in economics ($100-120k for a starting lecturer in a top 50 econ department, and nearer $200k if you are in a finance department or a business school) and wall street obviously pays even more. Policy work is usually viewed as second tier; you would rarely find PhD students from top programs like Harvard/MIT in those jobs unless they joined in senior positions, late in their careers.

You can look at Harvard econ placements here if you dont believe me; 90% get faculty positions, and a few take wall street jobs or go to the Fed:

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fil...-2010-2011.pdf
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fil...-2009-2010.pdf
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fil...-2008-2009.pdf


edit: Quant finance is probably a better example since physics/maths PhDs have much worse career prospects than economists and quant'ing is the only way they are likely to get a 6 figure salary, but even then I think most people would take a permanent academic job in a top department over private sector work if they were offered both; the main drawback of academia is the lack of jobs, and how awful it is in some fields at the lower levels (eg 3+ years of low-paid postdoc work in lab science with no guarantee of a job afterwards). Top hedge funds are an exception though, and can often attract first rate people.

I was taking issue with the idea that jobs outside academia seldom require PhDs, which is not actually the question you are addressing. My point was that is not true of all fields, and economics is a particular one that I am familiar with. There are plenty of jobs outside academia in economics that require PhDs - the Fed you've already mentioned, the IMF is another - and a lot of Wall Street economists join after stints at either the Fed or the IMF, so although few Wall Street jobs will specify a PhD is required the fact that these are favored recruiting grounds effectively means most of the guys have PhDs. I consider IMF jobs to be policy work, and these are very seldom seen as second-class in the way you imply; in fact they are regarded as quite prestigious. Consultancies also often require a PhD, as do some jobs in certain private sector firms. So it is simply not true that jobs outside academia do not "require" PhDs.

Incidentally, a good Wall Street or investment economist will earn way in excess of the salaries you've mentioned, admittedly with a bit of experience required.

Edit: I also have to say that most of the quants I've met in market-related jobs appear to really enjoy what they do. I do know some who didn't and went back to academic-type jobs, but just in the way financial markets are not for everyone, academia is not for everyone either. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that investment banking/fund management is not filled with people who hate their jobs and are just there for the money, but to the contrary, people who are very lucky to be paid well for doing jobs they enjoy.

[nonswimmer]

Does this thread really need another tedious debate about the worth of a PhD and who should pay for them?

The bottom line is:

Failed 30% of masters classes, now passed and capped @ 50%

That's a pretty strong indication that - at this point in your life - tackling a PhD would not be a good idea.

You can always come back to it later but as others have said - get job-hunting.

[choco_latte]

Just posting to thank you all for your replies. They were useful.

Sometimes you get tunnel visioned while pursuing some goal, and don't see when events show it isn't the right one anymore. I spent a lot of time and money on the masters thing and it seemed a waste to abandon academia. Your posts helped me realize that I should go get a job.

As nonswimmer says, you can only predict future success based on past performance. I did well at my job before studying, but badly at studying. Doing what I'm good at - working, is much more likely to yield good results - happiness, money, etc. That isn't to say that returning to study was valueless - I did gain new ways of looking at things, and a broader understanding of computer science than you get studying electronics. They are 2 different subjects, far more than I'd previously appreciated.

I got a job at a good company within 2 weeks of starting looking. The future looks pretty bright.

Good luck to you all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE 'do you need a PhD':

If a person wants to earn a lot of money, I would suggest that they work in finance. The pay in finance, versus the kind of work they do / skill they need, is much higher than elsewhere. For me, finance work would be unfulfilling, but for friends it has been very profitable.

For the super elite - those who are in a position to study for a quantitative PhD at a top university, the higher degree may be unnecessary. If e.g. you already have a 1st in math from oxford, or made a contribution to your field at undergrad, you can probably get that quant job without a PhD.

For the more normal, unless you have some reason to believe you are exceptional, you should note that the average salary for a worker with a PhD is 40k lifetime mean, and assume that will be you too. There is nothing wrong with aspiration, but delusion is rarely a path to happiness.

I have had the pleasure of working with board members in a number of engineering companies, and although these people are more likely than average to have a PhD, the majority do not. I suspect that PhD graduates and board members are drawn from the same elite section of a distribution of ability. They are high earners because they are naturally able, due to good parenting and early education. That they have a PhD is caused by the same early factors, but did not cause the other good things in their lives. A rich man is likely to have a rolex and a sports car, but nice watches do not cause sports cars.

However, with these elite people, it is important that their success is a narrative. They are X today because they achieved Y and Z previously. Doing academic research is a good way to put yourself in a position achieve Y and Z. So is starting a business, whether it succeeds or fails. Anticipating which technologies will be game changing, and making sure you work on them as they mature also works.

But as I say, most readers probably will not be exceptional. I believe they should choose the things that will lead to them being happy, solvent, and fulfilled. In engineering and science, a research degree is a conservative choice for achieving these things - for 3 years, it returns a high quality of life in return for low wages. After that, it probably won't do more than get you an interview you wouldn't otherwise have got. Relative to working those 3 years, I wonder if it gives you better demonstrations of skill, and experiences. Likely more than unskilled work, and less than a rotational graduate program. The rest is on you.

I agree with sj27 that in some fields, a PhD is often a requirement. In the sciences, there is a structure where PhD grads direct research, MSc grads do the research grunt work, and BSc graduates largely do structured work like quality control. This isn't so much true in my field - engineering companies tend to consider both MSc and PhD grads for research. I'm sure if you had a PhD in that specific topic, you'd get the job, but it's not weighted so highly for the transferable skills that come with research training, because in engineering the emphasis is on producing a product (demonstrator).

But er, this is assertion on subjective experience, so believe what you will.

[edit to add para agreeing with sj]

[LinzyLoo]

(Original post by choco_latte)
Just posting to thank you all for your replies. They were useful.

Sometimes you get tunnel visioned while pursuing some goal, and don't see when events show it isn't the right one anymore. I spent a lot of time and money on the masters thing and it seemed a waste to abandon academia. Your posts helped me realize that I should go get a job.

As nonswimmer says, you can only predict future success based on past performance. I did well at my job before studying, but badly at studying. Doing what I'm good at - working, is much more likely to yield good results - happiness, money, etc. That isn't to say that returning to study was valueless - I did gain new ways of looking at things, and a broader understanding of computer science than you get studying electronics. They are 2 different subjects, far more than I'd previously appreciated.

I got a job at a good company within 2 weeks of starting looking. The future looks pretty bright.

Good luck to you all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE 'do you need a PhD':

If a person wants to earn a lot of money, I would suggest that they work in finance. The pay in finance, versus the kind of work they do / skill they need, is much higher than elsewhere. For me, finance work would be unfulfilling, but for friends it has been very profitable.

For the super elite - those who are in a position to study for a quantitative PhD at a top university, the higher degree may be unnecessary. If e.g. you already have a 1st in math from oxford, or made a contribution to your field at undergrad, you can probably get that quant job without a PhD.

For the more normal, unless you have some reason to believe you are exceptional, you should note that the average salary for a worker with a PhD is 40k lifetime mean, and assume that will be you too. There is nothing wrong with aspiration, but delusion is rarely a path to happiness.

I have had the pleasure of working with board members in a number of engineering companies, and although these people are more likely than average to have a PhD, the majority do not. I suspect that PhD graduates and board members are drawn from the same elite section of a distribution of ability. They are high earners because they are naturally able, due to good parenting and early education. That they have a PhD is caused by the same early factors, but did not cause the other good things in their lives. A rich man is likely to have a rolex and a sports car, but nice watches do not cause sports cars.

However, with these elite people, it is important that their success is a narrative. They are X today because they achieved Y and Z previously. Doing academic research is a good way to put yourself in a position achieve Y and Z. So is starting a business, whether it succeeds or fails. Anticipating which technologies will be game changing, and making sure you work on them as they mature also works.

But as I say, most readers probably will not be exceptional. I believe they should choose the things that will lead to them being happy, solvent, and fulfilled. In engineering and science, a research degree is a conservative choice for achieving these things - for 3 years, it returns a high quality of life in return for low wages. After that, it probably won't do more than get you an interview you wouldn't otherwise have got. Relative to working those 3 years, I wonder if it gives you better demonstrations of skill, and experiences. Likely more than unskilled work, and less than a rotational graduate program. The rest is on you.

I agree with sj27 that in some fields, a PhD is often a requirement. In the sciences, there is a structure where PhD grads direct research, MSc grads do the research grunt work, and BSc graduates largely do structured work like quality control. This isn't so much true in my field - engineering companies tend to consider both MSc and PhD grads for research. I'm sure if you had a PhD in that specific topic, you'd get the job, but it's not weighted so highly for the transferable skills that come with research training, because in engineering the emphasis is on producing a product (demonstrator).

But er, this is assertion on subjective experience, so believe what you will.

[edit to add para agreeing with sj]

This actually helped me a lot, thanks. Congrats on your new job and good luck