PhD compulsory taught courses?

Is it better to go for a PhD programme that has compulsory taught courses in the 1st or even 2nd year, than one that has not? It seems that most top universities like LSE, Harvard , MIT or Princeton have them, and that students have to pass these exams to upgrade. But there are decent universities that don't require students to take any courses at all except one research method class, eg Manchester (at least in my research area). It's quite natural to think that students from a more stringent programme have solid foundations than those who aren't. But then, would that be a waste of them to take a couple of MSc modules when you can spend time focusing on your research? What's your view on these taught classes being made compulsory for PhD students?

Reply 1

username36063

OK there are a few issues here.

Firstly, USA programmes on the whole have a taught element and are also much longer. So hence when you say MIT, Harvard etc thats why.

As for the UK, Most UK PhDs do not have a taught element (i'm unaware of a specific element to LSE, but you're probably right as ive no idea about LSE), however several funding bodies (e.g. Welcome trust and some NERC ESRC etc) are moving to 1+3 studentships where the first year is a Masters year with taught element, and then you do the 3 year PhD without any taught modules.

Many Universities (e.g. Imperial where I am) have key skills modules that you should take in research methods and ethics etc, and they have to be taken to transfer from MPhil to PhD.

I personally think that taught courses are a complete waste of time, a PhD is about becoming knowledgable in a specific area, whats the point in covering old ground of general concepts, if you wish to do that do an MSc.

Reply 2

the_alba

As flexiblefish says, most UK universities do not make you take classes, expect for maybe an introductory class about research methods in your first year, or about graduate teaching - vocational stuff in other words, nothing academic (which many PhD students would find sort of patronising).

A few places, Oxford for example, makes its first-year DPhil students sit in on classes from a Master's degree, if those classes are relevant to the subject of the DPhil, and if the student didn't do their Master's at Oxford. This is a major source of annoyance to most students, and its a stupid system.

Mostly though, when you do a PhD here it involves three to four years of individual research with sporadic supervisions and no classes. It's not at all like doing a PhD in the States, which takes around seven years and involves many many classes (which I think is crazy!).

Reply 3

The Boosh

if you are going down the research council funding route then you often have to take a taught research training masters which, incidently, is pretty much covered during the phd anyway,.

Reply 4

the_alba

The Boosh

if you are going down the research council funding route then you often have to take a taught research training masters which, incidently, is pretty much covered during the phd anyway,.

Nobody mentioned this to me. Is this general among all universities / subjects? I'm expecting some pissy little classes in research methods (all of which I learned at Oxford anyway), and a couple in teaching approaches or whatever - but a whole Masters in the subject? Seems a bit extreme.

Reply 5

The Boosh

erm, it's difficult to explain, especially after a few beers.

basically - my dept. has the new route phd (research masters + phd). the first two terms of my department's phd involves research training at masters level (x4 modules) regardless of whether or not the person is actually on the new route phd or traditional mphil/phd route. these modules are classed as approved by the esrc as new route modules for the masters and we all have to do them. the third term of the first year for new route students, like myself, involves writing a research methodology dissertation (in order to get the new route masters). for those who are on the traditional mphil/phd route, the third term involves preparing the conversion paper. by the end of the first year, the new route masters group get an msc and are ready to begin the second year of a four year route, whilst the traditional mphil/phd group start the second year of a three year route. the new route phd gets an msc, a year extra to finish and the opportunity to apply for research council funding (twice: once before the msc and once after), whilst the traditional route are not allowed to apply for research council funding because they do not have the requred masters. however, wierdly enough, the new route four year group can submit a year early and actually spend the same amount of time as the mphil/phd route, but get funding and extra qualification if they are lucky (like me).

the whole thing is a bit strange, but has been embraced by loads of universities. it may be different for the ahrc, but i always thought a new route was needed for the ahrc too. certainly in the social sciences we have a huge need for different research paradigms because the field is so diverse. i had experience of research methodology for a previous masters, but nothing like this at all.

Reply 6

lorrybeep

I suppose those on the new route are the ones that require a bit more foundation in their specialisation area as they might not have the background requirement therefore need to do an msc first; whereas those on the traditional course have done a strong msc in the relevant field and are allowed to go straight into research slightly quicker than the new route students. Anyway the thing is im not doing the new route and not getting fundings from research councils. I'm more interested in knowing whether attending msc courses while on PhD is going to be a waste of time for me. Surely I will have to sit on a few modules before I find that out. But from those who's done it and taken extra courses, what's your view?

Reply 7

The Boosh

no, no, no, no :smile:

most the people i know have a subject specialist masters and a bachelors anyway. the msc was just a funded route for us. the msc is only research methodology and not subject knowledge. also, given that you have to do the research training anyway, you might as well do the msc on the grounds that you can submit your thesis in the same amount of time as a traditional phd, but get an extra qualification. phd in 3 years or msc/phd/funding opportunities in 3 years. it's almost daft not to do the new route given how much more you gain from it.

Reply 8

the_alba

I don't really get all this, but maybe this compulsory research masters thing is just an ESRC anomaly, as I've not heard anything on the AHRC front (?).

I've just been told I've got AHRC funding for my PhD (yay), but nothing has been mentioned about this research training thing. Hopefully it won't apply to meand I can just sail on by... after all, I got all the research training I need from the Oxford MSt. Really, I don't need anymore. Please believe me, god of AHRC!

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Articles for you

Is a postgrad course worth it? The pros and cons of postgraduate study

Open day questions: history and philosophy students

Five study tips to help you get a first in law

Postgraduate Doctoral Loan eligibility

Try out the app

Continue on web