Very low paid studentships. Worth it?

Why have you completely ignored the posts in this thread? As a number of people have said, this is normal in Scotland for a number of differing reasons.

Because you and that other person could possibly be wrong for this case? If it was funded by a research council I'd expect it to pay the same as doing a PhD in the UK. If it's funded by the university then it's up to them to underpay their students in whatever way they like.

Science PhD opportunities give rise to researchers in science, many of whom will make significant contributions to useful fields.

PhD opportunities in the arts gives rise to people who have intensive knowledge about fields for which there is no use whatsoever.

Most science PhDs themselves don't make grand contributions, but integrating the effect of PhD opportunities over the span of a career gives the result that they are infinitely more useful than those in the arts.

Science PhD opportunities give rise to researchers in science, many of whom will make significant contributions to useful fields.

PhD opportunities in the arts gives rise to people who have intensive knowledge about fields for which there is no use whatsoever.

Most science PhDs themselves don't make grand contributions, but integrating the effect of PhD opportunities over the span of a career gives the result that they are infinitely more useful than those in the arts.

ITT: Humanities students in denial about the value of their life's work.

It may come as a shock to you, but no one actually cares about the sciences, merely what they can get out of them

Which is more impressive, the motherboard of a laptop engineered to nanoscale perfection, or the philosophical treatise written on that laptop? The pixels of an e-reader screen, or the hopes and fears of the protagonists of a novel displayed upon that screen? Science - invaluable as it is - is nothing without the humanities. *prepares for neg onslaught*

The same goes for so many things. Science of the sake of science often breeds spin off technologies which industries find useful... and not the other way about.

For me, the science aspects are far more impressive. It could be said that the humanities are nothing without the science to support them, because it is science that allows such ideas and thoughts to propagate throughout the world.

Not to mention that he completely got the relationship between science and industry wrong.

Most of the technologies that have made our modern world what it is do not exist because industry told science that it could make money out of it, and demanded that science put its research efforts into making them.

For example, laptops, mobile phones, smart phones, ipods, ipads, PDAs, e-readers, etc, etc, etc are all possible because of the miniturisation of electronics.

This didn't occur because industry demanded that science made it happen. Most of the efforts in miniturisation of technology came from the space race, when it was paramount that the electronic systems used to control the shuttle were small enough to be launched into space. And the space race certainly wasn't a directly industrially relevant affair. That was about scientists saying... okay, let's push ourselves and see if we can do something really interesting.

The same goes for so many things. Science of the sake of science often breeds spin off technologies which industries find useful... and not the other way about.

You have things the wrong way round; you are committing a very basic philosophical error.

Youtube was created because people wanted to share videos more easily. Youtube did not precede the idea that propagated it. Likewise, its creators worked for Paypal. Paypal did not precede the idea of transferring money. Banks already existed. Paypal was created to share money online more easily. The key here is more easily. The problem has to exist before a solution can be found. Once a solution is found new problems arise, for example copyright issues and file-size issues with respect to uploading videos at Youtube, and the process continues.

While I suppose it depends upon your definition of science, and I do not personally equate what you are calling science with what is science (in the Greek sense, i.e. theoria (theoretical knowledge), where is the science in a discussion between two Greek philosophers talking about what constitutes essence? In this sense, engineering (i.e. 'the science aspects') is of small historical value in the grand scheme of things (i.e. the motherboard of a laptop in the example above), and I cannot help sense the irony in that it is often the humanities students who are generally among the only ones who actively champion the historical significance of engineered solutions, albeit in a superficial way sometimes.

What is worth applauding is the theoria behind the engineered solution. And contrary to the opinions on this thread, the theoria is not exclusive to science nor is it distinct from the humanities in any meaningful sense.

Hi there ! I just stumbled upon your post, and am really pleased to see that there is a fellow MPhil/PhD Law researcher at Bristol who is doing research that will have real and relevant commercial application to the subject matter they are researching , as opposed to much of the turgid, irrelevant grot produced by most PhD researchers! What year are you in, and how are you finding it generally? I am due to upgrade in October 2011. Also my research is primarily to do with corporate governance and regulation in the professions, with more than a smattering of Econometrics thrown in too!