This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

PhD - what is it like?

Hi Everyone,

I am just wondering what a PhD is like. Are there good supervisors that provide guidance? Is it like an extended MSc thesis? Do you have to motivate your supervisor? Is it a case that you are given experiments to do by your supervisor, you conduct them and then explain your results?

I would love to do a part-time PhD in biomedical research, preferably in complex genetic disease. I would like to do it on copy number variation. Are there any good websites that explain what a human genetics PhD is like? Is it the case that from your background reading you generate your theories and hypothesis and then discuss with your supervisor?

I would appreciate any advice you have to give. What makes a successful PhD student? How is a thesis structured?

All the best,

Ulric

Reply 1

xleoanimusx

13

I am also interested in this, posting for notifications :ahee:

Reply 2

Klix88

17

I think you'll get as many different answers as there are PhD researchers! Everyone has their own experience and their own take on it. Here are mine (Disclaimer: I've just had to suspend three months into my third year, because my supervisor/dept cocked something crucial up and expect me to pay to resolve it!)

Original post

by Ulric

Are there good supervisors that provide guidance?

There are good and bad supervisors. Some come across as great in the interview but turn out to be arrogant and unhelpful. Some are great from start to finish - and all points in between. Like applying for a job, in many respects if you don't already know them, you have to trust to luck and hope for the best. Sometimes the bad ones will come across as arses during the interview, or will already have that reputation, so you can decide whether you can cope with that for three+ years. But you do need an awful lot of resilience and motivation to work with a supervisor who's building a career on arsedom.

Is it like an extended MSc thesis?

There are several levels of difference. There's an expectation of originality with a PhD. It's much more independent. It can also change radically as you work depending on factors like interim findings, which a Masters thesis doesn't often have time to do.

Do you have to motivate your supervisor?

I would say yes. "Managing your manager" is a very useful skill to learn. How difficult that turns out to be, depends on your personalities. My principle supervisor was fine whilst everything was going well, but as soon as things started going downhill, he backed off until it was sorted out by me/someone else. For the last six months, I was pretty much handled solely by my second supervisor and even then, I ended up having to trawl the department for other members of staff who might be more helpful.

Is it a case that you are given experiments to do by your supervisor, you conduct them and then explain your results?

There are different sorts of PhD. If it's a funded project, there will be an outline of the research before you apply - it will be like applying for a job. Your supervisors will probably have an idea of what they want done and will be up to you to agree how it gets done with them. It depends on your supervisor as to how much input they want on the method design. Maybe you'll draft a design and they'll refine it, or they'll suggest a design which they expect you to follow. Again, it depends on the research and the supervisor.

The results will feed into your research and sometimes you can present them as things like stand-alone conference or journal papers if they're useful enough.

Is it the case that from your background reading you generate your theories and hypothesis and then discuss with your supervisor?

Again, it depends on the type of PhD. You may start out working with a set theory, which your research will prove/refute. If you have designed your own proposal (more common with self-funded PhDs) then you need to write a proposal in advance of applying which gives an idea of the theory (or theories) you want your research to explore.

Reply 3

Josb

6

Original post

by Klix88

There are good and bad supervisors. Some come across as great in the interview but turn out to be arrogant and unhelpful. Some are great from start to finish - and all points in between. Like applying for a job, in many respects if you don't already know them, you have to trust to luck and hope for the best. Sometimes the bad ones will come across as arses during the interview, or will already have that reputation, so you can decide whether you can cope with that for three+ years. But you do need an awful lot of resilience and motivation to work with a supervisor who's building a career on arsedom.

I see now that some unis assign two supervisors to avoid the "Russian roulette" problem with supervisors. I think it should be compulsory.

Obviously, continuing students know better about prospective supervisors.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4

Klix88

17

Original post

by Josb

Obviously, continuing students know better about prospective supervisors.

There are still no guarantees. My principle PhD supervisor was my undergrad diss supervisor. He was great as the latter but turned out to have a short attention span and no interest in helping with problems (which are pretty much standard during a PhD)..

Reply 5

Josb

6

Original post

by Klix88

There are still no guarantees. My principle PhD supervisor was my undergrad diss supervisor. He was great as the latter but turned out to have a short attention span and no interest in helping with problems (which are pretty much standard during a PhD)..

Hence the idea of a supervisory team. I heard it's common in the USA.

Reply 6

redferry

19

Original post

by Josb

Hence the idea of a supervisory team. I heard it's common in the USA.

I've now amassed 4 supervisors :biggrin:

they all have their pros and cons but it means I can always get help if and when I need it :smile:

Reply 7

Josb

6

Original post

by redferry

I've now amassed 4 supervisors :biggrin:

they all have their pros and cons but it means I can always get help if and when I need it :smile:

Four?

I'd be worried they contradict each other. :biggrin:

Reply 8

auroracase

5

I'm going to have 3 when I start in October and they have already been sending me in different directions with my research proposal! Should be interesting... :smile:

Reply 9

Klix88

17

It can definitely be an issue. A mate at another uni spent three months kicking their heels when their two supervisors started rowing with each other. It was an external partnership PhD, where they had one uni supervisor and one supervisor from the partnership organisation. The original partnership supervisor left their job, and their replacement wanted the research done in a fundamentally different way. There was nothing to do until the two of them finally argued themselves into some sort of compromise.

I had my Transfer panel fundamentally disagreeing with my supervisors. They failed me and I had to redesign my research into something neither I nor my supervisors thought was appropriate, just in order to pass the resubmission. Getting stuck in the middle of academics going head-to-head, is never a pretty situation to be in.

Just one of the pitfalls though, and many people go through PhDs quite comfortably without this sort of thing happening.

Reply 10

redferry

19

Original post

by Josb

Four?

I'd be worried they contradict each other. :biggrin:

They have a heirachy and different areas of expertise so it works pretty well. My primary is in charge of the wild dog side of things, my secondary is the modelling expert, my third supervisor is there to help out with physiology elements and my CASE partner is there if I can't get in touch with the others :tongue:

PhD - what is it like?

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated