next »

[cayenne]

I don't think questions about European PhDs are always cases of American exceptionalism, or come from any doubts about accreditation or quality of education; I think the process is just very different and leads to different sets of skills.  In my field (in the US), it's standard to do a 4-year BA or BS, 2-year MA/MS, 2 years of coursework, then comps, then at least 1 year in the field, and then write a 200+ page dissertation.  In many research institutions, it's also typical for MA and PhD students to teach from the MA level through completion.  I've always heard that the British system is much more specialized, with a 3-year bachelors, a 1-year masters, and no course work before starting the PhD research, which is often under a scholar on an existing project.  That leads me to believe that UK PhDs come out of grad school with much better research skills and a tighter specialization, while US PhDs have more experience teaching and developing new projects from the ground-up.

This degree progression assumes that American PhDs have progressed entirely through the American system and that British PhDs have done likewise--a very dangerous assumption were you to apply it to the people I know in higher ed on both sides of the Atlantic.

I'm a PhD student in the social sciences at Oxbridge now, previously educated entirely in the United States, and the best way that I've found to explain my program "in American" to friends and colleagues back home is to tell them that it's like going ABD from Day One. Whether or not the dissertation is researched in the context of a veteran scholar's existing project or developed independently from the ground up will, I should think, be situation-dependent, not nation-dependent. (I've heard of both scenarios in both countries.)

What definitely is a real issue, though, about UK vs. US PhDs, is the shape of the rest of their academic knowledge and experience. In my department, we have PhD students who have done their masters degrees in an array of different disciplines, and I have good reason to believe that the situation is similar in my discipline at, say, the LSE. Just because someone has a UK PhD in X doesn't necessarily mean that they're familiar with the foundational literature in the field of X. They might actually know more about the field of Y. (Incidentally, I would say that disciplinary boundaries are much less rigid in the UK than they are in the US, but that's another set of issues.)

I do think, generally speaking, that American PhD programs are better at producing well-rounded academic professionals. Because the UK PhD program is so focused on the dissertation (with any other activities being entirely "opt-in"), you will find a much greater variation in the quality of the students within a single department...but of course the truly great ones, who have the energy and drive to "opt in" to everything, would be great by any standards.

[testingthewaters]

It seems to me that institutions requiring third party validation for degrees, outside of degrees taken at places like East Uzbekistan University (I made that up), is yet another example of American exceptionalism.

Er, no, not really. Frustrating, yes, but American, no.

I've worked at 3 European universities, and they all required some such thing for my diplomas (and one required validation for my diploma from another European country). It's all part of mobility- more paperwork than one imagined humanly possible is part of moving countries.

This stuff is frustrating, but not as exclusively American as you think. I could also tell you stories from personal experience of immigration processes in West European countries that make your toes curl and certainly rival the US immigration laws. (You need paper A to get B, you need B to get C, but you need C to get A.... the never ending loop of immigration paperwork.) My European coworkers are amazed- you don't know about this kind of stuff when you are a citizen, because you never have to deal with it.

That it also happens in Europe doesn't make it right or any less frustrating, I'm just saying that treating people from outside your country as "other" is not an exclusively US thing.

[embitteredhistorian]

It seems to me that institutions requiring third party validation for degrees, outside of degrees taken at places like East Uzbekistan University (I made that up), is yet another example of American exceptionalism.

Er, no, not really. Frustrating, yes, but American, no.

I've worked at 3 European universities, and they all required some such thing for my diplomas (and one required validation for my diploma from another European country). It's all part of mobility- more paperwork than one imagined humanly possible is part of moving countries.

This stuff is frustrating, but not as exclusively American as you think. I could also tell you stories from personal experience of immigration processes in West European countries that make your toes curl and certainly rival the US immigration laws. (You need paper A to get B, you need B to get C, but you need C to get A.... the never ending loop of immigration paperwork.) My European coworkers are amazed- you don't know about this kind of stuff when you are a citizen, because you never have to deal with it.

That it also happens in Europe doesn't make it right or any less frustrating, I'm just saying that treating people from outside your country as "other" is not an exclusively US thing.

Kind of off-topic, but I remember one bank in the UK (Co-operative Bank) that would not let me open an account because one proof-of-address (a utility bill) said "Apartment 19" and another one said "Flat 19".

[minira]

I do think, generally speaking, that American PhD programs are better at producing well-rounded academic professionals. Because the UK PhD program is so focused on the dissertation (with any other activities being entirely "opt-in"), you will find a much greater variation in the quality of the students within a single department...but of course the truly great ones, who have the energy and drive to "opt in" to everything, would be great by any standards.

This matches my own experience. Those of us in my UK PhD program who want to can do courses on just about anything we're interested in.  In the 6 years I've been here, I've studied 4 languages and taken a number of courses, taught for 5 semesters, spent a year doing field research and developed interdisciplinary expertise in several areas. Those of us who do 'opt in' come out pretty darned well-rounded. The only place I'm finding that I have a weakness is that, since my university doesn't offer the big World Civ courses, I don't have experience teaching that specific course, which is desirable for entry-level jobs in my field.

[jerseyjay]

I would agree on the well-rounded part. As a PhD student in the U.S., I hated all the coursework I had to take and thought it a diversion from what I wanted to do, i.e., research. However, now that I am actually teaching in the U.S., after having earned a doctorate in England, I am glad I did all that coursework since it does give me a foundation in my teaching. (Truth be known, it also helped in my disseration, since it grounded me in various historiographies.)

I think that the key to getting a job in the U.S. with a foreign PhD, is to to convince people that you are familiar and comfortable with the U.S. academic system, be it in research or in teaching. Publishing in U.S. journals, teaching in the U.S. (including as an adjunct if necessary), and having letters of reference from American scholars, are all part of this.

[embitteredhistorian]

I would agree on the well-rounded part. As a PhD student in the U.S., I hated all the coursework I had to take and thought it a diversion from what I wanted to do, i.e., research. However, now that I am actually teaching in the U.S., after having earned a doctorate in England, I am glad I did all that coursework since it does give me a foundation in my teaching. (Truth be known, it also helped in my disseration, since it grounded me in various historiographies.)

I think that the key to getting a job in the U.S. with a foreign PhD, is to to convince people that you are familiar and comfortable with the U.S. academic system, be it in research or in teaching. Publishing in U.S. journals, teaching in the U.S. (including as an adjunct if necessary), and having letters of reference from American scholars, are all part of this.

This seems to be a recurring theme and I agree with the veracity of this statement, but I am quite disappointed (although unsurprised) at the parochialism of the U.S. system. Globalization is the big buzz word in Europe and Asia, so it's unfortunate that the U.S. is lagging behind on this front. They may start lagging in other ways, too.

[historyphd]

I agree with the opt-in observation.  At my UK PhD institution it wasn't automatic that one started the PhD as ABD.  If a dissertation director decided his student needed further coursework, the student took further coursework.  Or, in some cases, the student would be asked to complete a master's first.  (By the way, US master's programs used to be one-year programs, too.)

I also had the choice to take courses if I wanted.  But in my particular field, mainly because I knew exactly what I wanted to do since I was an undergraduate in America, taking my MA here as well, I frankly didn't really have any further courses in my field to take.  Any more and I'd be bored.  So I found it, in my particular case at least, rather pleasing to begin my dissertation right off rather than have to take MORE coursework that really wouldn't benefit me all that much.  That being said, and to reiterate, I think my one weakness was not having a minor teaching field but that was easily remedied through teaching various things as a VAP.

[runwithscissors]

I think it's worth noting that the career track of UK PhDs often differs from others in Europe and of course in the USA. For those in the sciences and social sciences (in particular) most institutions in the UK are unlikely to hire a lecturer straight out of a UK PhD (especially if there is no prior research experience). It is generally expected that two or three postdocs are done to get publications and grants under the belt before applying for faculty jobs.

In many European countries where PhDs can take upwards of 7 years, they leave with the doctorate and significant research and teaching experience, and so are far more competitive for permanent positions than their UK counterparts. I think this can work to UK PhD's advantage though, as I'm 28 have a UK PhD and two years postdoc experience and a handful of pubs. By the time I reach the average graduating age of a US PhD I will have more experience and (hopefully) will look more competitive. Maybe I'm just deluding myself however.

[cayenne]

I think it's worth noting that the career track of UK PhDs often differs from others in Europe and of course in the USA. For those in the sciences and social sciences (in particular) most institutions in the UK are unlikely to hire a lecturer straight out of a UK PhD (especially if there is no prior research experience). It is generally expected that two or three postdocs are done to get publications and grants under the belt before applying for faculty jobs.

Hmm. In my field, the expectation that about the best you can hope for post-PhD in the UK is a postdoc seems, again to my American eyes, to be symptomatic of the lack of professionalization during the PhD. Although they are becoming gradually more common, (again in my field only so your mileage may vary) postdocs remain relatively rare--and in the United States the tacit assumption among grad students is that you do a postdoc if you're not yet good enough to compete for a "real" job. Having more time might be a net plus if you're able to go into hyper drive and come up from behind at the last minute, as it were, but it could also look like you're taking suspiciously long to mature. Of course, if your postdoc was as competitive as a proper job--Ivy League Society of Fellows or some such--then that's a totally different story.

I also think that, in the humanistic fields (but not the STEM fields), being younger than average is a distinct disadvantage on the U.S. job market.  People want to know that you've actually lived; after all, human life is, in one form or another, your subject.  The chair of my undergraduate department told us point-blank not to rush to finish a PhD: "I won't even look at you till you're at least 30, so take your time."

[embitteredhistorian]

I think it's worth noting that the career track of UK PhDs often differs from others in Europe and of course in the USA. For those in the sciences and social sciences (in particular) most institutions in the UK are unlikely to hire a lecturer straight out of a UK PhD (especially if there is no prior research experience). It is generally expected that two or three postdocs are done to get publications and grants under the belt before applying for faculty jobs.

Hmm. In my field, the expectation that about the best you can hope for post-PhD in the UK is a postdoc seems, again to my American eyes, to be symptomatic of the lack of professionalization during the PhD. Although they are becoming gradually more common, (again in my field only so your mileage may vary) postdocs remain relatively rare--and in the United States the tacit assumption among grad students is that you do a postdoc if you're not yet good enough to compete for a "real" job. Having more time might be a net plus if you're able to go into hyper drive and come up from behind at the last minute, as it were, but it could also look like you're taking suspiciously long to mature. Of course, if your postdoc was as competitive as a proper job--Ivy League Society of Fellows or some such--then that's a totally different story.

I also think that, in the humanistic fields (but not the STEM fields), being younger than average is a distinct disadvantage on the U.S. job market.  People want to know that you've actually lived; after all, human life is, in one form or another, your subject.  The chair of my undergraduate department told us point-blank not to rush to finish a PhD: "I won't even look at you till you're at least 30, so take your time."

I've seen 25yr olds jump into lectureships (assistan professor) in the UK. The ageism of your former chair is odious, but he has a point--I don't know if a 25yr old who's never had a proper job can teach something like Lucky Jim without looking like a jackass.