The Student Room Group

American PhD's VS UK PhD's

I know they are quite different, but reading around it seems like the general idea is that American PhD's are better regarded than UK ones. I don't plan to live in the UK after I complete my studies (I'm either going to live in Italy or the States), so that should probably push me in the direction of an American PhD, but the 5 to 6 years it takes to complete is putting me off slightly.

To summarize, I've got an unconditional offer to stay on at Oxford (no news about funding yet) for a PhD in Psychology and my research proposal is on a topic I'm quite interested in but not the topic of my obsession or anything. During the past couple of years I got interested in the philosophical issues of psychology and neuroscience, so an American PhD would suit me better because of the taught component and more flexible nature of the course.

However, my undegraduate record is not *that* stellar, I have a 2.1 (am doing an MSc now that, so far, I should pass with merit, if I'm lucky I could scrape a distinction*), and I know that admission to good schools in the States is very competitive. And Oxford is always Oxford. If I decide to take a year out I plan to apply to an international graduate school in Italy for a place as a junior researcher in a cognitive neuroscience department to get some practical experience in the field (I will already have 4 research projects in Psych under my belt, by then). Would this make up for my good but not extraordinary grades?

*scratch that, just got my 2nd term marks - distinction it is

So, if you're still awake after reading this... what would you do if you were in my position (or are in a similar position)? :confused:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
hm, hard to say. Personally I would stay at oxford. However, you should maybe give the US a shot if you'd really like to go there..apply ..but i would only go if i got REALLY good funding. lol im still an undergrad..so not too sure if my post means much...but just my take on things. best of luck to you mate! btw your the guy that did undergrad law at warwick?
Reply 2
Hey, thanks! Yeah, I'm leaning more towards staying at the moment... argh, decisions!
You got it almost right, I did my undergrad at warwick but in psych and I'm a girl :p:
Reply 3
OH lol! sorry about that.
Reply 4
btw how are you finding Oxford? what college do you belong to? how long have you been there?
Reply 5
As far as I know, US PhD last for a duration of 7 years as opposed to the 3 years a UK one takes. So it's a long, long effort in the US - 7 years! This is why a load of the US students come over to the UK to do theirs. I remember a few years ago now, when I didn't know the difference between them, and I was on a forensic sciences course and the lecturer was American and I asked her why she'd moved here and she said because the PhD is four years shorter and as well respected and just as good. ie. the impression she gave was that the UK had plenty depth, and the US way of things was just dragging things out and involved a lot of padding and irrelevant crap (ie. it had the same depth but with all this unnecessary stuff too). She didn't seem to think anything should take 7 years and I kind of agree.

It's hardly that 3 years isn't intensive study is it? Normally, I would say go to the US to expand your horizons for the experiences etc, but for you this seems an irrelevant factor if you are already set on living abroad; and if so, I would advise you to stay at Oxford. You have a place, and Ox is one of the best universities in the world - I can safely say you are not going to be disadvantaged and I think you know that!

But I do think the two key factors here are that you are planning to move abroad anyway and the difference in time between the two courses. Another three years in the UK shouldn't hurt if you are planning on living your life somewhere else (at least for a while), and a near decade on a PhD seems like a bit of waste considering you can get it done in 3 and then onto bigger and better things and still have the letters by your name!!

Good luck!
Reply 6
Wow, thanks a lot zhivago! :smile:
Yeah, the time factor is indeed what puts me off more, I also feel lik 7 years to get a degree after you've already gone through 3-4 years of higher education is a waste of time, especially given that many things change in 7 years and I might end up dying to move on to other things but stuck into uni when I'm getting close to turning 30! It would be easier to get 2 PhD's in Europe in less time than it takes over there!

drmoney: I love Oxford to bits, it's truly an amazing environment, I've done more things and met more friends here in less than a year than I've done in warwick in three years. I'm in wolfson college, which might not be the most famous but it's a really good grad college. :smile:
Reply 7
thats Really good! Is you postgrad degree Taught or research? how's the work compared to that at Warwick?
Reply 8
It's taught but we need to carry out a 1 year research project as well. I have to say work hasn't been too overwhelming so far, but that's probably because I got much much better at time management, but I have to say the shorter terms can be felt sometimes and some of my coursemates do get rather stressed. Also, the fact that you know you're working with some of the top academics in the field does put a lot of pressure on you to do well, even for the stuff that doesn't count towards the final marks (I lost count of how many times the question "uh?! Give me a sign! Am I talking bul****t?" crossed my mind while talking to my supervisor).
But I'm quite pleased with how warwick prepared me on an academic level to face pg study, to be honest.
Reply 9
ah thats really cool. Glad to know things are going well:smile:
Reply 10
As far as I know, US PhD last for a duration of 7 years as opposed to the 3 years a UK one takes.


This isn't exactly true. I had started out my PhD study in the US before moving to London, so I'm entitled to have a say. In my major literature, which normally takes longer than natural science degrees, it normally takes at least 2 years to complete the so-called coursework and then at least 1 year to do the so-called comprehensive exams. After you pass all the comp exams, you're allowed to write your Phd dissertation, which normally takes at least 2 years. In other words, it normally takes at least 5 years to complete a US PhD in the arts and humanities, but these days things have become quite abnormal: the average year of US PhD studies in literatures is 7 or 8 years. One of the reasons is that PhD students are required to teach undergrad courses, which is not only time-consuming and taxing but also delays their progress in writing dissertations.

On the other hand, although it normally takes 3 years to finish a UK PhD, it's in fact more and more common (especially in the arts and humanities) that people spend 4 years or even longer completing their degrees because there are more and more must-read stuff and because the demand for quality is getting much stronger.
Reply 11
kalen
I know they are quite different, but reading around it seems like the general idea is that American PhD's are better regarded than UK ones. I don't plan to live in the UK after I complete my studies (I'm either going to live in Italy or the States), so that should probably push me in the direction of an American PhD, but the 5 to 6 years it takes to complete is putting me off slightly.

To summarize, I've got an unconditional offer to stay on at Oxford (no news about funding yet) for a PhD in Psychology and my research proposal is on a topic I'm quite interested in but not the topic of my obsession or anything. During the past couple of years I got interested in the philosophical issues of psychology and neuroscience, so an American PhD would suit me better because of the taught component and more flexible nature of the course.

However, my undegraduate record is not *that* stellar, I have a 2.1 (am doing an MSc now that, so far, I should pass with merit, if I'm lucky I could scrape a distinction*), and I know that admission to good schools in the States is very competitive. And Oxford is always Oxford. If I decide to take a year out I plan to apply to an international graduate school in Italy for a place as a junior researcher in a cognitive neuroscience department to get some practical experience in the field (I will already have 4 research projects in Psych under my belt, by then). Would this make up for my good but not extraordinary grades?

*scratch that, just got my 2nd term marks - distinction it is

So, if you're still awake after reading this... what would you do if you were in my position (or are in a similar position)? :confused:




Oh! you get into Oxford with a 2:1 degree?
Doesn't Oxford require a first?
May you tell me something about your story?

Thanks.
Reply 12
lol while i cant tell kalens story. many have gotten into OXbridge with 2:1's...remeber admission is not based soley on grades, but also references, and statements can make a very big impact. if your grades arent up to par..but you're refs say " the brightest young man i've ever met" etc...it would be hard to turn down someone whose made such an impression on other people, or even a big impression on an admissions tutor from their personal statments.
Reply 13
Oxford's admission requirements are a "2.1 or above", and apparently some people are even doing PhD's with a 2:2 (I read this somewhere on this site).

Also, apart from the factors mentioned by drmoney, they tend to look at the modules: e.g. if you get so-so grades in modules that you're forced to take but are irrelevant to the course you're applying for or your research interests but get good marks in relevant modules. I'm doing an Experimental Psychology degree with focus on cognitive/neuropsych and always got high marks in my research projects and bio/cognitive psychology modules, but a stupid Psychology of the Law module in my third year dragged my avarage down, for example.
Reply 14
Do you think the fact that you are from Warwick matter?
Would a 2:1 from Warwick trumps a 1st from a less prestigious university/department?

Thanks.
Reply 15
wrong grammar, sorry.
Reply 16
Well, it depends on how much less prestigious I guess. Maybe not against a 1st from other good but not top-5 unis, but I think it could do against a 2.1, or a 1st from TVU! Warwick seems to be much better regarded than I thought it was while I was there...

To be honest, I'm not one of those people who believe that a 1st is a 1st and it doesn't matter where you went to uni, otherwise there'll be no point in going through the whole admission process, interviews etc. etc. I think it does matter, in some cases it can give you the edge, but that I doubt an Oxford tutor who, at interview, faces an extremely bright and passionate student with good or great academic record, will deny him admission just because he went to XY university.
Stay in the UK. PhDs in the states are long-winded and have many distractions to take you away from your research. A PhD from Oxford will do well over in the states.
Reply 18
Cheers Chemistboy :smile:

After lots of thinking I've come to the conlcusion that it would be worth going to the States only if I got into Yale really, cause that's where I've always wanted to go (and I could afford to, really, given their financial aid packages), otherwise 6 years in an average uni I've never visited, and that's not reknown abroad, against 3 years at Oxford is definitely not worth it. Plus I could always do self-study in the areas I'm interested in and attend some lectures here...

Thanks everyone for your help! :biggrin:
Reply 19
I could be completely off here, but my friend was applying to US schools this year for PhD straight out of undergrad (rare here in Canada). Anyway as far as I understand from her, the 6 years is an MPhil/Phd program and no masters year is required in between. In fact a lot of US schools don't do stand-alone masters programs at all. So it's still more than the UK but not 4 years difference since in the UK you either have to have a masters degree first, or combine it in a 4 year MPhil/Phd program.