[chrisseaton]

> I have seen a trend in UK PhDs in the last 10 years or so to include much more of the "practical skills" type work.

Gah I think this is a terrible idea.

In practice it means courses that aren't really relevant to anyone that you have to take when you really want to be getting on with your research.

Everyone's putting in minimum effort and getting nothing out of it. What a waste of time.

They're also taught by people slightly outside your field since they're taught across the department, so they teach you things that are seriously wrong for your field (I was told to publish in journals not conferences, for example, which is incorrect for my field).

They were always a frustrating waste of time. I just wanted to get on with my work.

It's only popular because it's aping the American PhD, and in my opinion the British PhD is better in practice (shorter, more focused, more grown-up, more independent, more professional) and should not be watered down.

[g_p]

I felt your way actually about it at the time. I like the 3 year timescale and greater level of self led work. I pretty much avoided doing any "taught" courses for the reasons you outlined, but I have found some of my students did benefit from them. I think it comes down to individuals and what they need. It wasn't right for you or me, but I think there are some students who perhaps come in needing a little bit of a push on some of the supporting skills, and they found some of the courses helpful.

I definitely don't like the trend towards the 4 year PhD with taught courses in year 1 though - I had enough time in 3 years to mess around on side projects and other things I didn't need, but which were fun and interesting, even if irrelevant. When you add the inevitable consulting and startup advice on the side, it seems to me 3 years should really be the upper bound, rather than extending the process any further.

[Beldin]

I'm not from the UK. The idea of someone becoming an actual PhD in 3 years is rather quaint to me. Perhaps it's just a different approach, or perhaps the PhD system I'm used to produces a level of results that UK PhDs typically only achieve after their first PostDoc.

Or, perhaps there is an initial period of a year or so where the student is not yet doing a PhD, but is trying to produce results nevertheless. Saw that in Surrey, but can't remember how long students had after defending their PhD proposal and being promoted to PhD student.

[chrisseaton]

In the UK you just get going on your research. You don’t do initial courses. You effectively defend your proposal when you apply.

Ultimately the goal of a PhD is to learn to be a researcher and to produce a good new research result. If you can do that in three years why wait around another two or more for the sake of it?

I had a colleague who did a PhD in two years in Austria. In that time he got two top-tier papers published. If you’re getting multiple papers into top-tier venues then surely you’ve past the test? You obviously can do research and you obviously are producing good results as judged by a wide group of peers.

Why does the US drag it out so much?

I’ll tell you why - US PhD students also only spend about three years on their PhD. They spend the rest of their time doing masters-level taught classes, teaching (!) and working on their advisors’ projects instead of their own!

[widforss]

I don't think US PhD's are required to have a Master's to begin with, no?

[g_p]

You certainly don't need a Masters to do a UK PhD either.

[widforss]

Ok, you need in Sweden and Norway unless they make some kind of exception. And that probably wouldn't happen the way universities are governed here.