[jckt]

A question for those who got their PhDs -- do you think there is a difference between getting one in a European Uni versus getting one in the USA? I've known a few science PhDs in the UK that seemed to be quite content in their decision, while the people that seem to have a bad time tend to do theirs in the USA (speculation in general, not just from the comments in this thread). Would this be an accurate assessment or does the location of your institution not really matter?

[Derbasti]

The article seems to imply that you can do either a master's or a PhD. Is that correct? In Germany, a master's is a prerequisite for the PhD.

[iak8god]

> The article seems to imply that you can do either a master's or a PhD. Is that correct?

Yes. I wouldn't recommend it. As different as the MS and PhD are, doing an MS will be more like a PhD than anything else a person will have experienced during their undergraduate years.

[danieltillett]

The big difference is the UK uni's are in a big rush to get you in and out in 3 years. I have seen people from the UK with Ph.Ds that are really just a master thesis.

Edit. Australian degrees are about half way in between the UK and US system. Most candidates take around 4 years.

[tfgg]

3.5-4 years funding is the norm these days in the UK, and departments start to get fined if you go over 4 years. Masters are usually an entry requirement, normally done as an integrated undergrad masters, so I was 4 years undergrad and 4 years PhD. Undergrad programs here are also usually more focused on the subject that you're studying and don't have additional requirements. Go back a few decades and it was the norm to do 3 year undergrads and 3 year PhDs.

The only people I know who finished their PhD in 3 years were exceptionally good (not to mention lucky in their research) and wanted to move on for other reasons, such as leaving the country with a partner for a postdoc job.

[danieltillett]

I am glad to hear that the UK they are giving students a little more time to finish now as I thought the strict timelines that the UK students was on were far too strict. It is fine if you have a project that runs like clockwork (where you are just cog in a big machine), but if you are trying to do something important (and hence difficult) it leaves very little room for anything to go wrong.

[jckt]

What would be the UK equivalent of a US PhD? A postdoc position? And in that situation would the stress be comparable? Or is the system just totally different?

[tfgg]

My understanding is that a UK PhD will generally be weaker than a US PhD and would probably do a postdoc before being "equal", but by that point you really have to be looking at publication record to make a judgement.

[danieltillett]

I can't really speak for the level of stress in the UK system since I have never been part of it, but the candidates coming out of the UK system are in general weaker than those out of the USA (of course there is huge variation). I would put then 2 years behind the US graduates as far as research experience.

[xioxox]

Well, it does take 2 years less! Most people hiring PhDs in academia are aware that UK/European PhDs are going to have fewer publications, etc, than their US counterparts. It may be a bit harder to jump straight to a prize fellowship from a European PhD, but it happens quite a bit.

In the UK at my institution, there was only optional teaching load for PhDs, you knew you had funding for 3 years before you started and there weren't many taught courses, so you can dive straight into research.

[danieltillett]

I understand this, but I am trying to answer the OP's question. The UK system puts a lot more emphasis in getting the student in and out in three years, but of course this means the students coming out the other end have less experience. There is really no right or wrong here, just differences.