Talk:Doctor of Philosophy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

PhD is normally two phases?

In most countries Ph.D. students go through two distinct phases. In the first phase students typically complete required courses and some form of comprehensive examination. The successful completion of the examination marks the beginning of the second phase and entitles the student to refer to him or herself as a Ph.D. candidate

Isn't this more descriptive of a US/Canadian(?) PhD? Part 1 coursework, part 2 research? A quick read through the conditions in other countries below shows that most of them appear to require a bachelors with honours/masters or equivalent (e.g. mature students) _before_ starting a PhD?dmcg026 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Medical schools may offer research Ph.D. degrees in conjunction with their M.D. programs, although an M.D. by itself is frequently enough to teach medicine."

Should be polished - perhaps elaborate on MD/PhD programs? An MD is always "enough" to practice medicine. Maybe mention the advantages of earning a research oriented PhD in conjunction with earning an MD.

In the modern world, it indicates an individual who went back to school because they were unable to get a real job. Typical PhDs do not like this pointed out in public, and tend to edit out comments such as this one.

Riiggght.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm Jackliddle 03:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Omitted the above. :-)))

(My Ph.D. was awarded only after I was sufficiently motivated, by Jimbo, to finish the dissertation; my finishing was a condition of my employment and got me a raise. So there!)

Hey, all the above being said, the article should probably contain some information about the notion of the perpetual student and the envy and contempt of overeducated people on the part of some other people, such as the person who wrote the above. The page should also probably be located on Doctor of Philosophy. --Larry Sanger, Ph.D.

Mention should perhaps also be made of the contempt of undereducated people on the part of some Ph.D's ! ;-) --Seb

Ahem -- I worked "real jobs" and taught while working on my PhD. I've worked in Telecom, dotcoms,and regulatory jobs, as well as food service and other crap money jobs. i have a PhD because it's a prerequisite for teaching at a university level and pretty useful for competing to teach at community colleges. Many of the people I went to grad school with also have similar real world experience. I suggest that the person above may not know his ass from his elbow, and my need anal-cranial separation therapy...JHK

Ph.D's don't exist just in english speaking countries - it's used all over the world. Local variants are commonly translated to Ph.D when they are comparable with the international convention. I didn't change the article because I didn't know how to refrase it properly. --Tbackstr

Overseas degrees should be properly translated, i.e. a German Dr.-Ing. degree for example is not a degree of "Doctor of Philosophy" in engineering, but simply a degree of "Doctor of/in Engineering" that happens to be the German equivalent of a US Ph.D. in engineering. Translating it as a PhD is plainly wrong IMHO.Mbruno 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think in other countries they are usually just called "Doctor", abbreviated as Dr., or "Doctor of medicine", "Doctor of natural sciences" etc. The general use of the Philosophy label is only used in English speaking countries I believe. By the way, do engineers get a Ph.D.? --AxelBoldt (Yes engineers can get a PhD Drkirkby 10:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC))

I know that with some luck I'm going to get my Ph.D or D.Sc. (Doctor of Science) in a few years in a non-english speaking country (Finland). However, the question of which one I'll get, Ph.D. or D.Sc., is still a bit diffuse for me, since I'm an engineer. Tbackstr In England at least, one gets a PhD for a fairily narrow bit single research. Althought highly desirable to do so, it is not actually necessary in England at least to publish any scientific papers as part of a PhD. The DSc in comparision requires the publication of a large number of papers Drkirkby 10:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The DSc (Doctor of Science) degree in England is a so-called higher doctorate awarded only to senior scholars based on the ensemble of their scientific work. Similar higher doctorates, e.g. Litt.D., LL.D., Mus.D., are awarded in other areas (humanities, law, music, etc.). An Oxbridge DSc would be equivalent in the US to the honorary doctor's degrees awarded by universities such as Harvard or Princeton. Mbruno 12:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you're a Wikipedian the following doesn't apply to you.....

PhD students, in moving up in the educational ladder have to narrow their fields to increase their depth of knowledge on a subject. Learning more and more about less and less, they eventually end up by knowing everything about nothing! (;-P) firepink ----

Would it be worth splitting the information up into more regional sections? A lot of the current stuff is slightly inaccurate when applied to the UK, for instance. cferrero Yes, I felt that too. For example the bit "...in others such as engineering or geology, a doctoral degree is considered desirable but not essential for employment. " Actually, in many cases in England being a Chartered Engineer is more desirable for employment than a PhD. Drkirkby 10:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Also to be considered is that grad student and this article have a lot of overlap in content (although not authorship) and should perhaps be reworked concurrently? --zandperl 02:12, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am reminded of the student who after getting his "Permanent Head Damage" announced to his professor he was starting work on a second Phd. When asked why, he replied "Any idiot can get just one Phd"!

Disputation

I added a description here yesterday on the procedure of a Swedish doctoral disputation. Today somebody added "and Egypt" to this text. It is quite possible that Egyptian universities have the practice of a public defense, but is really the procedure and terminology identical? Unless this can be corroborated, I will remove Egypt from the present context. / up◦land 11:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comparative balance of research and coursework at dissertation stage internationally: explanation suitable to laypeople

I moved this from the PhD page proper, thinking it was more proper to the talk page: "This article failed to explain in layman's language the difference between a PhD by Research and one where it involves a lot of course work In the US, it is PhD by rigid coursework and research for dissertation; in Germany, Japan and Canada is it by rigid PhD by research with chosen coursework??? PLease it will be nice if you can work on this." --(moved by)EuropracBHIT 03:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC).

It used to be the case that doctoral students in Europe were not required to take classes and would not have any kind of formal degree examination apart from the final oral exams (a "Viva" in the UK, or a "Rigorosum" in Germany). A student in Germany would basically finish a 5-year diploma course (whose last two years would provide formal training equivalent to graduate-level classes in the US) and would then go straight into research-only doctoral studies. In the UK on the other hand, one would complete a 3-year bachelor's degree plus a two-year part taught, part research master's degree, or, alternatively, would finish an extended 4-year undergraduate degree e.g. in engineering or natural sciences, the last year of which would be also comparable to graduate level coursework in the US. After that, like in Germany, a UK student would embark on 3 or 4 years of original research leading to a PhD degree. This situation is rapidly changing though as several European schools are now requiring that PhD students actually take formal classes and written exams, at least in their first year in the program. That is the case for example in several Cambridge departments (e.g. engineering, economics, material sciences, astrophysics, etc.) as well as in the LSE and, from what I've heard, at ETH Zürich in Switzerland. Furthermore, it is now standard practice in most UK universities to submit the students to an oral exam (a sort of "mini-viva") at the end of the first year to determine whether they can proceed or not to formal registration as PhD candidates. The British first-year progress review differs though from an American PhD qualifying exam in the sense that it is not so much aimed at evaluating the candidate's fundamental knowledge in his chosen major area of specialization (and, probably, one minor area as well), but focuses instead on preliminary research work and, perhaps, on a formal thesis proposal (like the thesis prospectus meeting/exam in the latter stages of a PhD program in the US).200.177.192.160 01:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well???

after reading all the negative I am shocked! I am holdin a Ph.D d. Master in Indust. Psych. and it took a long time hard work and I am not sorry for it! So anyone who wants to go for it...you do need a brain ;-)))) not just words! [Comment at 19:56, 1 Jun 2005 by User:217.185.243.9 ]

Which particular sentences create an impression of negativity? --Theo (Talk) 09:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy as the Lowest?

The article currently says this:

"Philosophy was, however, considered the lowest of the faculties, and the Ph.D. died out in many universities".

Can anyone prove this? If the article is referring to philosophy prior to the Enlightenment then it is surely mistaken as all educated "philosophers" prior to this time were also working in the natural sciences and the arts; think of the ancient athenians who contributed to several fields of knowledge and likewise so did many of the Enlightenment theorists (such as Rousseau who wrote novels, studied nature and wrote political philosophy; or Francis Bacon who amongst other things wrote novels, painted and contributed toward science. So, that sentence: "Philosophy was, however, considered the lowest of the faculties, and the Ph.D. died out in many universities". It is plainly wrong. It is impossible to prove. Consequently, I will remove it.--CJ 1 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)

It's not "plainly wrong," nor is it "impossible to prove." Read any comprehensive history of education. Medieval universities generally had four faculties -- theology, law, medicine, and philosophy (i.e., liberal arts). Students had to complete their training for a lower (liberal arts) degree before they could be admitted to the higher faculties to study theology, law, or medicine.

Missing info

I feel that this article could do with a bit more one how one might go about applying for and carrying out a Ph.D. — Chameleon 13:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a great idea, but based on the above discussion (esp. by cferrero), I have a feeling that the processes may well be country- and course-specific. In Australia, the principal pre-requisite is a Bachelor degree.... having said that, the paradox was started a few years ago when the combined MD/PhD course was introduced, permitting students straight out of high school to apply for this course.

Perhaps we can start to discuss how one goes about obtaining their particular doctorates in their countries? Steph, 25 January 2006

external links

The external links are, entirely, inappropriate. There is a references section and if these links are not actually cited or citable for this article, they are here merely to attrack clicks. Therefore, they are spam. -James Howard (talk/web) 14:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Short comment on the PHD (ABD) designation

It seems rather ludicrous to actually use this type of designation. Although I can understand intellectually why one would want to do so, it seems disingenuous since probably the most important parts of the PHD is the dissertation. I would suggest then that we could use the designation; PHD(ABE), All But Education.

For better or worse, it's commonplace. If one look in job ads for faculty members one sees "PhD, or ABD expected to finish by August" (or similar language) in a great many ads. However, when I see someone sign a letter with something like PhD (ABD), and it's clear that they left school decades ago and have no intention of ever finishing, I wonder who they think they're impressing. Being ABD is little different from having a M.S., it seems to me. JJL 20:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Any comments regarding PhD being revoked?

Hello all. I was just reviewing the article about Jan Hendrik Schön, and his scandal involving his post-doctoral work. As far as I know, this is the first time someone has been deprived of their degree of Doctor of Philosophy due to scandals unrelated to their work as a graduate student. At any rate, does anyone have any comment about adding a section on revoked PhDs? - Steph (yes, PhD), 25 January 2006

Boston U. considered doing this for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s doctorate based on charges of plagiarism, but decided against it: Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues. But, revoking a Ph.D. is so rare that I don't think it needs a special section--if anything, it should be under degrees in general, not doctoral degrees in particular. JJL 16:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ph.D Candidate or Ph.D. Student ??

Does someone know the difference between the term "Ph.D. student" and "Ph.D. candidate"? Is there a difference? I'm asking this, because i don't know which term to write on my webpage. I have not undertake the first year quals yet. Thanks for any comments! 66.36.152.79 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Typically, a PhD student is anyone enrolled in a gradauate program that ends with a PhD. Therefore the minute you show up in graduate school you are a PhD student. A candidate usually has specific guidelines. At my school (and several others that I know of), a PhD "candidate" has passed the comprehensive exams and has successfully proposed his/her dissertation; most PhD candidates are therefore in their final year or two of graduate school. Hope this helps! -Nick 02:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It probably varies by school; where I am, if you're enrolled in a PhD programme, you're either/both a PhD student and a PhD candidate. Exploding Boy 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers. Does anybody else want to express their opinion? 66.36.152.79 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Being a candidate is a formal status, and being admitted to candidacy is usually a formal process. A typical set of requirements is a certain amount of coursework, having passed the prelims, having selected an advisor, and possibly having prepared a research proposal. All PhD candidates are PhD students, but not vice versa. JJL 20:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Different "grades" of PhD

It is possible to be awarded a "PhD with distinction" in Australia. Is this different grading of the degree conferred in other countries? Steph, 14 Feb 2005.

I've never heard of anything like this in the USA. -Nick 18:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There are no "grades" of PhD in the UK/Australia/NZ - simple pass/fail (although Masters degrees may be awarded as a half-fail) - but in Europe "cum laude" etc. can be found frequently (e.g. Germany, Netherlands, Hungary, Spain)dmcg026 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

While there are no "grades" of Ph.D. in the UK, having the examiners accept the thesis without requiring any corrections is viewed -- unofficially -- as a particular honor. (Most successful candidates have their theses accepted subject to their making some minor corrections.)

Internationally

How about some content like the way that Ph.D. requirements, etc. vary from country to country and also (if possible) how many Ph.D.s each country has. I hear india has the most. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate place to discuss the structure of doctoral programs worldwide is the Doctorate article. This particular article is about the Anglo-American degree of Doctor of Philosophy and not about the equivalent degrees for example in France, Germany, or Brazil. 200.177.50.113 23:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Time

15 years? That is almost unheard of as far as I can tell. In my field 5-7 is the norm, and my friends in other fields report similar times. 10 years is very long in almost any program (in the US, anyway). In fact, at my school (and at least two other US schools that I've checked) there is an absolute 10-year time limit. If you (or anyone else) knows of some sort of empirical data to support any of this, let me know. -Nick^talk 05:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC) There was a Prof at University College London who told me his part-time PhD took 14 years. He was not the mosy dynamic person I ever knew it must be said. No idea where he got the PhD from. Note I did not write the bit about the 15 years, so my knowing of someone taking 14 years is a bit more evidence that they can take a long time.

Science/Mathematics Doctorates

How many pages would a sci/math dissertation typically amount to? Or can a dissertation be really short just as long as the ideas presented are impressive/unique?

A little confusing

There are separate articles for Doctor of Philosophy and Doctorate. Neither article explains the difference. There is a section in Thesis on oral defenses, yet this article also contains a large section on the same topic. Exploding Boy 04:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

One other problem

In several wikipedia articles I've been watching, I've started to notice that international differences are causing articles to become confusing. This is one of those articles. In the US, a PhD means one thing. In the UK, it has other meanings and requirements. In Australia, yet another meaning. Every english speaking country (that would be using the EN version of wikipedia) has a different take on exactly what "doctor of philosophy" is. As such, I suggest that this article be re-written so that it is sectioned by country. Much of the info in this article is interesting, but irrelevant to people in other countries. For example, there is a very common 10-year limit in the US for finishing a PhD. I believe americans would want to know that, and that europeans would want to know that PhDs can take much longer in their academic system. Rather than stating a vague "it can take between 4-15 years to finish a PhD," I think the readers would be better served by seeing sections that pertain to their countries, and reading information that is more specfic. Those readers who are interested in a broader perspective will certainly read the other sections. Thoughts? -Nick^talk 06:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that. The section headed 'Time', particularly the third paragraph, is extremely confusing and garbled- I suspect because it is inadvertently conflating the US and British higher education systems. At least, that's my assumption- I have been a post-grad student in the UK, and I can only say that the system described is very different to my experience. It should be clearly demarcated what info pertains to which country's system. Badgerpatrol 15:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does this page include discussion of PhD programs other than philosophy? It seems like only the introductory section ought to be present in this article; the rest should be relegated to a general PhD article that this one could link to.

(:lol. Badgerpatrol 23:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Is it a gag? Well then in case anyone wonders in the future, Ph.D. stands for "Doctor of Philosophy" no matter what field the degree is granted in. Someone with a Ph.D. in astrophysics still is a doctor of philosophy. :) -Nick^talk 03:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Coursework

"In the British-patterned universities, the Ph.D. program is much shorter because the coursework component is assigned to the masters' and bachelors' degrees, and the Ph.D. course is concerned purely with research for a thesis."

This makes it sound like it's a given that a PhD student might will have done both a undergraduate and post-graduate qualification. While for the funding bodies this is the accepted model, many mature (and self-funders) students will undertake a Phd without doing a Masters'.

Yes, that section is total nonsense. I don't know who wrote it, but they don't appear to know what they're talking about. Doing a Master's, or even a 4-year undergrad degree, has nothing to do with any subsequent PhD study (see my comment above) and is not in any way a necessity, whether one is a mature student or not (although it is obviously fairly common). It is possible that it was written from an American perspective- this whole idea of 'coursework' is one that is fairly alien to me, although I appreciate that there are a wide diversity of approaches to PhD study, even within the UK. I have added a clean-up tag. Badgerpatrol 13:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That was me above - the article is a bit of a mess and frankly I'm not sure it can be saved in it's current form. It's such a mish-mash of different systems that anyone reading it is likely to get entirely confused about which country does what.

--Charlesknight 08:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In most cases the PhD is a combination of coursework, qualifying/comprehensive exams and dissertation/thesis, isn't it? Perhaps the way to solve the problems is to divide the article by regions (North America, UK, etc). Oh wait. It already is. So what's the problem? Exploding Boy 15:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Only the funding section is divided up by region at present. The problem is that much of the information (or at least that part which seems to claim to describe the British system) is wrong. It obviously varies, but I can only speak from my own experience of the UK. Nobody has to do a Master's before undertaking a PhD, as described above, and there is no need for special exemptions. Anyone who has a recognised Bachelor's degree can go straight on to do a PhD in the UK. I've never heard of PhD students submitting coursework for assessment or undertaking formal exams (except for the viva at the end), but there are a great diversity of systems and differences between subjects and institutions even within a country, let alone internationally. I think however for a broad framework dividing the whole article up by region is step in the right direction. Badgerpatrol 15:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I agree. The bulk of the article needs dividing by region. In Canada, being accepted to a PhD program implies completion of a related Master's degree, or, in exceptional cases, an Honours BA (which is different from a BA Hons in the UK, as far as I know). In addition, there is a requirement for some coursework, and for completion of comprehensive examinations in addition to the thesis defence (viva). Exploding Boy 15:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, it's still pretty much the model that the thesis is the start, middle and the end of it. No classes or examination (some universities have a process where you provide a progress update at the end of the first year but it's pretty much it). To confuse matters further - many are now adopting a model where instead of producing a thesis - the student will produce four inter-relating research papers and those are classified as the thesis.

--Charlesknight 16:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As is already the usual system in much of Europe, at least. Badgerpatrol 16:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I've reorganised the page to bring it more in line with the Graduate school article, so feel free to get in there and clarify. Exploding Boy 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

totally wrong

I have deleted totally the following and I will explain why here.

In the British-patterned universities, the Ph.D. program is much shorter because the coursework component is assigned to the masters' and bachelors' degrees, and the Ph.D. course is concerned purely with research for a thesis. The target time is nominally three years, but some students finish earlier, and many take a few years longer. The actual time depends strongly on the discipline being studied.

This is rubbish for the reasons already discussed - while the funding councils are moving towards a model where they want applications to apply for Masters' funding and Ph.D. funding at the same time, there is no "assignment" of coursework to the masters' - it's not actually a requirement to do a masters' before a Ph.D.

British-style bachelors' degrees do not usually require a broad liberal arts and sciences general education component and students are therefore free to concentrate solely on their chosen discipline. The bachelors' degree, if conferred with a high level of 'honours' (i.e. excellent grades), can allow admission to a Ph.D. program without having to first write a masters' thesis. This route is only possible if the university offers an 'honours year' in the field of study, though this is becoming increasingly common due to the greater funding that universities receive for enrolling doctoral students.

This is complete rubbish from start to finish. I have never heard of a british university having a "honours year" - virtually every degree awarded now in the UK has honours attached to it. In theory you can just walk after completing all of your modules and just get (for example) a BA but in practice everyone does their final assignment/project/disseration and gets their honours. The "honours" bit is no indication of excellent grades - you can get a 2:2 and still graduate with a BA(Hons)!

--Charlesknight 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I didn't write any of this, I just shifted it into position. Feel free to fix that section as necessary. Exploding Boy 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a stab when I get back - X-men 3 calls :)

--Charlesknight 16:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's total guff. I don't really understand it, but I think the intent in talking about an 'honours year' is the rarer, newer style 4-year degrees, i.e. MSci etc. It should also be noted that (I think) in Scotland one has always had the choice of graduating in 3-years (without Hons.) or (much more commonly) 4 years (with Hons), and that Scottish degrees are actually a bit broader in scope and closer to the US idea of an undergraduate degree (although still quite distinct). In fact, it's a bit confusing talking about 'British Style' degrees in the first place, since there are fairly radical differences between England + Wales and Scotland, and even within each, in terms of length, structure and content of degree courses. It's all very perplexing. (Hope the movie was good, I have heard mixed reports.) Badgerpatrol 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess what he means is that, in the UK, if you graduate with a 3-year BA degree in a discipline of humanities or social sciences, you are normally expected to get a master's degree first before being admitted into a PhD program(mme). Master's courses in social sciences (most definitely in the case of PolSci or Economics) normally last two years and require both coursework (assessed by written exams) and submission of a short dissertation. On the other hand, a student in engineering or physical/life sciences who already has a first-class four-year undergrad degree, e.g. an MEng or MSci, is normally admitted directly into a PhD program, albeit under a probationary status (at least until the end of his/her first year, when he/she probably goes through some kind of formal performance assessment, maybe even an oral exam). I don't know if that's the case in all UK universities, but it seems to be the standard at Oxbridge.200.177.50.171 00:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The honours year refers to old practice when everyone started an ordinary degree and only some did an an additional yearto get an honours degree. Now everyone does the honours degree course. RalphHinton 12:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

US-specific info gutted; ABD designation gone.

This article has gone through quite a few permutations in the past year. But it seems that the result has been left rather thin on US-specific info. I mean, only two sentences on TA/RA funding? It's sad to see we've actually LOST good information from this article.

Also, in response to the commenter below, regarding the PhD(ABD) designation, I can understand why someone would find it objectionable for someone else to use the designation. I understand, but think that the objection to using it is kind of irrelevant for inclusion in the Wiki. The fact is, people DO use it. Google for PhD (ABD) and you'll find hundreds of attestations. It's quite freequently encountered on applications when grad students apply for jobs before they finish their degree. Given the fact that it's in regular usage, it seems to me that it would useful to explain what it means.

An early draft of this article had a short explanation, along the lines of:

"PhD (ABD)" is not a formal degree, but an occasionally used shorthand for "All But Dissertation". It is an informal designation that the student has completed all doctoral coursework, cumulative and/or qualifying examinations, research proposal and screenings, if required, and has been admitted to formal Candidacy for the PhD, with only the completion of the Dissertation remaining before earning the degree.

It seems to me a brief explanation like that would place it in its proper context, providing information to the reader, while making it clear that it's not a degree, which seems to be crux of some of the objection to using it.

I took a look through the page history, and it seems like there wasn't a whole lot of US-specific info that was lost (if any). The problem with earlier versions of the article was that it tried to make general statements about things that varied quite a bit from country to country. The article was reorganized by country in order to alleviate some of these problems. I think what happened was that the article was initially written from a US point of view, and then a great deal of info was added by those outside of the US. After the article was reorganized, all the non-US stuff was placed into various sections, leaving only the original (small) amount of US-specific info. Nevertheless, all of the original info is still in this article, it is just organized differently. -Nick^talk 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance rate

In the article, I wrote that some US Ph.D. programs can have as low as a 1-2% acceptance rate. I do not know the average acceptance rate (if anyone does know, please add it to the article), but I do know that in my area (psychology), a 1-2% acceptance rate is low, but does happen. Somewhere I have a guide to graduate study in psychology published by the American Psychological Association, and I do know that some schools' clinical psychology programs admit 4-6 people from a pool of almost 300. In my program (social psychology at Arizona State University) we admit 2-5 people from a pool of ~125 applicants. I do recognize, however, that many programs are not as competitive (other psychology programs in our department admit 2-3 people but only have about 20 applicants). Also, many people apply to multiple schools, so the odds that any one individual will be admitted to at least one program is fairly high. -Nick^talk 01:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that that is the case, if you say so- but it needs a more exact citation, and it would indeed be very useful to find out what the average acceptance rate is, as well as some indication of the spread. Furthermore, do you mean 'acceptance' as in acceptance to enroll on the course, or acceptance as in a (perhaps separate, I don't know) competition for funding? Badgerpatrol 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This study [1] seems to indicate that the average acceptance (i.e. applicants per department) for clinical psychology is 21%, and greater in almost every other branch of the discipline, with an overall acceptance (i.e. % of total applicant pool accepted to any department) of about 50%, although it doesn't give maximums and minimums unfortunately. However, what we really need of course are stats for other disciplines and some holistic idea of % accpetance, perhaps supplied by the US DoE or similar. Badgerpatrol 02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look around and see what I can dig up (from the DoE or Council of Graduate Schools). A quick scan of the internet revealed a few programs Ph.D. programs in business, engineering and psychology that claim a single-digit acceptance rate. But in addition, I found a few programs that listed acceptance rates near 80%. (I'm sure there are some programs at some schools that end up accepting 100% of their applicants; conversely, last year our J.D./Ph.D. program did not accept any applicants.) I'll see if anyone can provide a mean and a measure of variability, preferably broken down by academic area. -Nick^talk 07:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Honorary

I feel this article should discuss Honorary Ph. D. s and the people who generally recieve them.--Trick man01 05:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, honorary Ph.D.s are no longer awarded. There are honorary doctorates, but none with the Ph.D. designation. Instead, honorary doctorates are most often designated LL.D., Sc.D., Litt.D., L.H.D., etc. -- so they should be described within those articles (or in a separate article for honorary doctorates).

PhD in popular culture

Phd had been widely used in popular culture, particulary in the US, for the adrivated term pretty huge dick. This usage has been seen in the sitcom Friends and on Scrubs. Think outside the box 15:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-US/UK Doctor's degrees should NOT be translated as a Ph.D.

Translating the names of non-English doctor's degres as a Ph.D. is plainly wrong IMHO. I agree that a French title of "Docteur" or any German "Doktor" title are equivalent in academic standing to an Anglo-American Ph.D, but the specific designation "Doctor of Philosophy" is simply not used in non-English speaking countries, or rather is used only in a narrow set of fields. In Germany for example, one can get a Dr.phil. degree in certain humanities special(i)ties, while in other areas, different titles (e.g. Dr.-Ing., Dr.rer.nat., Dr.rer.pol., Dr.med., etc...) are used instead and should be translated accordingly . A comparative description of doctoral programs worldwide belongs in the Doctorate article, but not in this particular article, which should be about the Anglo-American Doctor of Philosophy only and the different requirements to obtain it in the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. I have accordingly removed all references to Brazil in the PhD article and moved them to the Doctorate article. The same should be done with references to doctorates in France. .Mbruno 12:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC) ~

Coursework for British PhD students

It is not true that all PhD program(me)s in the UK require no formal coursework. In the Cambridge engineering department for example, first-year PhD students are required to take classes (at least two 16-lecture modules from Part II-B of the engineering tripos or advanced graduate reading clubs) and pass the respective written examinations for the modules taken with satisfactory marks. They are also expected to attend research skills classes and submit a first-year research report that is similar in nature to the thesis proposal in the U.S and must contain a review of the literature, identification of the problem to be addressed, and timetables/methodology for the completion of the research. At the end of the first year, there is a formal assessment of the student´s performance based on his/her results on the written exams and the first-year report. The assessment normally involves also a formal progress meeting with the student's supervisor and a second faculty member. Depending on the assessment, the student is allowed to register as a PhD candidate, or alternatively is recommended for enrol(l)ment in a research master's degree course (MSc). or asked to leave the university (normally with a certificate of postgraduate studies or a lower MPhil degree). The normal time for completion of a PhD dissertation, at least in Cambridge engineering, is 4 years, including the previously described first probationary year. That is slightly longer BTW than in other disciplines, where no coursework is required and most students write the dissertation in 3 years only. Source: [2] 200.177.48.218 09:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

But that's an exception rather than a rule - every PhD program has it's own little quirks and I'd be loathe to add in every exception to every bit of the process. Maybe we could add something indicating the article describes the generic process and individual universities might not entirely follow what is presented? Otherwise the article would quickly grow to an unreadable length. --Charlesknight 09:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Funding Section and superfluous Ivy League comment?

IMO, the bit about Ivy League is unnecessary and--perhaps--incorrect. In my field, almost every research institution (there are about 200) in the U.S. provides financial support in the form of waivers and stipends. Furthermore, I can imagine -some- fields of study at Harvard which do not typically provide financial support.

I'm hesitant to change this myself, since I'm not 100% sure about the Ivy Leagues' funding policies. Please chime in and edit the article accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.61.82.140 (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I will try to see what I can find. I think the distinction being made here is that, although almost all research universities offer waivers and stipends in the form of teaching and research assistantships, some universities (mostly top-tier / Ivy League) provide fellowships to their graduate students (i.e., same waiver and stipend, but no work involved). -Nick^talk 16:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what you mean exactly by "no work involved". I got my PhD from a non-Ivy League school, which is nonetheless ranked among the top 10 in my field (specifically # 3 for Computer Engineering and # 7 for Electrical Engineering according to the latest US News and World Report rankings). As a PhD student, I was officially a "research assistant" (with the usual stipend and tuition waiver), but all research work I was required by the department to do was in fact directly related to my thesis. In other words, I basically worked for myself and my advisor, not for the department per se. How would that be different if, instead of a "research assistanship", I had got a "fellowship" from, let's say, an Ivy League school ? PS: I also had to do one semester of UNPAID teaching internship, but that was a graduation requirement for ALL PhD candidates irrespective of their funding status; only people who were actually teaching assistants got paid for teaching and, of course, they had to do it more than one semester only. 200.177.192.160 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That is often the case for RAs. However, RAs are still technically obligated to work, even if the work overlaps with RA's own research. I know of plenty of cases in which grad students are RAs, but working on things that are not their specific area of interest (an example: my department has a huge grant-funded applied research center that employs many students as RAs, but most of those students' research interests lie elsewhere; their RA work is then in addition to their own research, even though they may be authors on papers coming from the research center). The point I was trying to make above was that, although RA work varies in its inherent usefulness (from completely overlapping with one's own research to being entirely unrelated and uninteresting), fellowship money usually comes free of any obligation to work on any specific task under any specific person. For some people (like yourself), the difference between an RA and a fellowship is negligible, but for others, it is a world of difference. And, because fellowship money is, in essence, "free money," the number of fellowships given at a university is usually proportional to the size of the school's endowment. -Nick^talk 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Page hacked

This page has been hacked. If you look on the page, you'll see the phrase "In most HELLO MY NAME IS BOB typically consist of..." in the second paragraph.

I tried to fix this in the "edit" section, but the original wording still appears there.

Very odd, and probably should be fixed by someone who knows what's going on.

216.106.8.195 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary U.S.-centric reversion.

Schwnj has arbitrarily reverted my changes which reflect history and worldwide positions. They may have needed more work and we can talk about it, but not deleted arbitrarily. RalphHinton 13:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the most recent history of the article, I see:

• A series of edits by 74.13.63.222, which, while constructive (I think; I've not extremely closely scrutinized the writing) deleted information about "two types" of PhDs and deleted several sentences in the Comparative value section, including one with a reference. The second deletion in particular is unacceptable with an explanation, and none was given in the edit summary.
• A complete revert of the 74.x edits, by Ancheta, with no explanation (other than that the edit is a revert). Since the edits were not vandalism, a total revert is not appropriate, per Help:Reverting. Rather, what is constructive should be kept and what is not should be changed (back).
• A revert of Ancheta's revert, this done by Schwnj. I can understand this, although it's not optimal, since it in effect is chosing between two versions of the article, rather than taking the best from both. But it did put the article back into the status quo position - 74.x has done some edits, and now other editors should react to that.

Some comments:

• Ralph - your real grievance, if there is one, is with 74.x, who changed a lot of the article, rather than with Ancheta or Schwnj, who were chosing between two versions of the article.
• It isn't clear at all that 74.x was making bad faith edits, despite the deletions. No one is going to know until there is some back-and-forth editing (not reversions), and efforts to find consensus language. That's the normal process when editors appear to have different opinions.
• I've added back the deleted info to the "Comparative value" section - the 74.x edits essentially gutted that, and I disagree with 74.x on that. I'm not adding back the "two types of PhD" info in the top section, text that was also deleted, because frankly (and I was a graduate student for a lot of years) I don't understand it. There may well be something to it, but it needs, at minimum, to be rewritten before it goes back in. (If it's saying that a PhD in, say, Biochemistry is different than a PhD in, say, History, that's certainly true, but saying that there therefore are "two categories" of PhDs can be seen as WP:OR by some - I think a citation really is needed before such text is inserted back into the article.)

Finally, I note that I'm not planning to watch this page/article, so if things don't resolve themselves, feel free to drop me a note. On the other hand, if I don't hear from anyone, I'm going to assume that no news is good news. John Broughton | Talk 15:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ralph, actually, I didn't revert any of your edits. After you made your edits yesterday, a series of new edits were made by an anonymous user. Another user then reverted the anonymous edits, but kept your edits. I undid the reversion (for the reason stated in the edit summary), which should also have kept your edits. If any of your text was changed, it was done so by the anonymous user, and not me. -Nick^talk 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been a little uncomfortable for a while now about the slightly US-centric nature of some of the information in this article, and while it's all very interesting and certainly deserves to be in here, I think the article could probably benefit from a bit of restructuring to reflect the various differences in practice between the many countries which have PhD (or analogous degree) awarding institutions.

Currently the preliminary section is peppered with US concepts and terminology ("terminal degree", "thesis committee", etc) together with a rather lengthy section on the typical structure of a PhD programme which certainly doesn't resemble the way things are done in the UK (or, I suspect, at least several other countries), and a paragraph on the current US academic job market. Now this is all jolly interesting and valid stuff, but it belongs in the US-specific section. If any country is going to be given special treatment, and regarded as being the default, it should be Germany, because that's where the PhD started (in the 16th century) - Nicholas Jackson 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the the two "US centric" paragraphs to the US section. I left the mention of "terminal degree" as I don't know how else to capture the concept of "the most advanced degree you can be awarded in a particular field of study." As for "restructuring" the article, I don't think that is necessary, as the article is already structured to highlight the differences between countries. In fact, earlier in 2006, the article tried to present a worldwide picture of the PhD, but there were so many edits/changes/complaints, I eventually split the article up into sections by country. I agree that country-specific stuff should go into that country's section. At this point, the US has only two sentences outside of its section (in the "categories" section), but I could just as easily take all the info out of the categories section and put it into the specific country sections. -Nick^talk 18:33, 4 January 2007

(UTC)

That looks much better - well done indeed (and well done for your previous work splitting the article up into country-specific sections). I guess the only issue I have with the PhD being described as a "highest" or "terminal" degree is that in many countries it isn't - the UK and some Commonwealth countries have higher earned doctorates (eg DSc, DLitt, etc) and Germany has the Habilitation. I'll see if I can tweak the wording to take this into account. - Nicholas Jackson 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I just wanted to not start an edit war. I agree I was worried by the anonymous users changes. It would have helped if edit comments had been entered. Sorry if I implicated Schwnj/Nick too much. I should have put my additions in lower sections and I will continue trying to do this. RalphHinton 13:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out earlier, the use of the term "Doctor of Philosophy" to refer to a research-based doctoral degree in different disciplines (natural sciences, social sciences, engineering, humanities, etc.) is specific to the English-speaking countries, most notably the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia. Doctoral degrees granted in Germany (e.g. Dr.rer.nat., Dr.rer.pol.,Dr-Ing., etc.) or in France (docteur), although equivalent in academic standing to a PhD, should be described elsewhere, specifically in the broader doctorate article. The Doctor of Philosophy article, as the name indicates, should include information exclusively on the Anglo-American PhD degree. 161.24.19.82 16:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On the "terminal/highest degree" debate, Nicholas is right about the British MusD, ScD, LittD, MD, and LLD which are indeed academic degrees with a higher standing than a PhD. The German Habilitation on the other hand, as explained in the Wikipedia article, is not an academic degree, but rather just a profissional qualification that enables a person to become a university professor and supervise doctoral students. Finally, in the US, the PhD is indeed the highest research degree granted by a university. Unlike in the UK, the LLD, ArtD and LittD degrees are honorary degrees in the States; the American ScD degree may in turn be awarded either honoris causa or, in some schools (e.g. MIT), based on coursework, an original research thesis, and by preliminary and final examinations (in which case it is equivalent in standing to a PhD, not higher). Also unlike in the UK, the American MD is a first professional degree in medicine (equivalent to a British MB/BChir degree), while the SJD or JSD is the standard research doctoral degree in law (and equivalent in standing to a PhD, again not higher). Mbruno 16:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tidying up reference section

I tried to tidy the references section a little tonight, adding the publication date for the text "How to Get a Ph.D." by Phillips and Pugh, and giving this source its ISBN. I have also added a reference to an article by Dinham and Scott (2001) that appeared in the "Journal of Further and Higher Education" that is relevant to this subject. Please note that the ISSN which I gave for this journal is only for the printed form; it has a different ISSN in its online version. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed that PhD Candidate be merged into this article. Is there any objections? --Kannie | talk 03:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, although it needs some serious modification to give a better worldwide view rather than what appears to be a predominantly US one (it certainly looks like the setup in Piled Higher and Deeper). Here in the UK there's no real concept of "All But Dissertation" - the PhD is nearly always all research based and people undertaking it consider themselves "PhD students" from day one, whatever the legal fiction of their MPhil registration. There's "writing-up" I suppose but that's a very different thing and the thesis is submitted before the viva. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although as Timrollpickering says, the article PhD Candidate isn't necessarily relevant outside the US, so perhaps the best thing to do would be to make it another subsection of the United States section -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

the article saying that one abbreviation is British English and one is American English doesn't seem correct

I am a PhD student in the UK and have always read that 'PhD' is an informal abbreviation but every candidate should know that 'Ph.D.' is the correct form for formal uses. The British/American distinction seems overly simplified if not plain wrong.82.42.207.235 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not my experience (as another PhD student) at all. I've certainly never been told this and looking at several UK institutions' style guides it seems the recommended formal use is very much for "PhD":

York says "No full stops - Eg USA, UK, MA, PhD, etc, eg, 20 per cent" http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/ppr/styleguide.pdf

Edinburgh gives a list of degree abbreviations includig "PhD" http://www.cam.ed.ac.uk/documents/University-of-Edinburgh-Editorial-Style-Guide.pdf

London Met has a table of "wrong" and "right" forms with "Ph.D" listed as "wrong" and "PhD" as "right" http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/staff/corporate-identity/web/guides/editorial.cfm

Manchester recommends against periods http://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/webhandbook/content/atoz/

Oxford (not known for being a place of change and which, for that matter, doesn't call their own degree "PhD") gives it as "PhD" http://www.ox.ac.uk/staff/branding_toolkit/writing_and_style_guide/index.html#aabbreviations_acronyms

Sheffield uses "PhD" http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/22/19/Styleguide.pdf

Queen's says "Omit full stops from degree titles (BA, MA, MSc, PhD)" http://www.qub.ac.uk/archive/info/Queen's_Style_Guide.pdf

Style guides aren't the work of one random hack in the university; they are the formal editorial policy of the institution and reflect thought being given to these very points. Whilst they may not always be followed 100% by the institution's own staff (especially given how devolved website control often is), they are the nearest to a clear statement of use on the matter.

On the wider point, it is increasingly very much the case that full stops are not used in acronyms in British English, although I have seen a few exceptions, usually influenced by older teaching. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The rule in British English is as follows: if the work is truncated, use a full stop; if the word is shortened (but the last letter remains), do not use a full stop. Thus "Doctor" becomes "Dr" but "Professor" becomes "Prof.". Thus it should be "Ph.D." in UK English. But, of course, rules were made to be broken... KarenSutherland (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

'Grand PhD' diploma mills

Should these be included in some way? [3] which is a diploma mill [4] but some unexpected people have their 'degrees'.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Training for supervisors - Remove?

The section in this this article "Training for Supervisors" seems to be a bit off topic. What does everyone think about it? Keep, shorten, remove? -Nick^talk 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As the person who created this section, you may be interested to know my thoughts. You may notice, if you look at the history of these Discussion pages, I raised the need for the article to cover training for Ph.D. supervision. However, if you feel that this is not the focal point of the article covered here, perhaps a new article "Doctoral supervision" (or words to that effect) could be created. The section as it appears here could then be shortened, and be preceded by a sub-heading saying "Main article: Doctoral supervision". Alternatively, this could go in an existing article in Wikipedia on a topic to do with higher education. I really think that the section belongs in Wikipedia somewhere - the question which is now opened to discussion is "Where"? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RemoveThe section doesn't seem to fit. How many Universities actually require mentors to be trained? Is this a universally accepted practice or only limited to a few universities? Is this thought just the opinion of a few authors? Demantos (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I say remove also. This is really an off topic section. A link, say in a "see also" section, to an appropriate article would not be out of place. --C S (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Funding edit war

This message is to the anonymous editor adding the info about PhD students being slaves, etc. Please note that one of the major rules of Wikipedia is it's Neutral Point of View policy. This means that everything must be written in a neutral tone. The language you added is far from neutral and reflects a clear opinion on your part, for example:

• "The sufferings of PhD students are usually compounded as their studies can force them off the lower rungs of a promising career ladder, scuppering any hope of a copious salary

In addition, some of the things you mention are patently incorrect. For example:

• '...invariably PhD students are destined to become slaves to research programmes and methods." It is quite foolish to assert that anything happens "invariably." This is clearly an opinion (indeed and opinion shared by a number of students), and your source doesn't even come close to demonstrating that your statement is correct.

• They are a cheap source of labor and status for institutions and faculty and, after they earn their degrees, most join the reserve army of the academic underemployed. Here you assert that 1) grad students are a cheap source of labor, and 2) most Ph.D. graduates are underemployed. The expense of grad students is debatable (for teaching purposes, for example, it is usually cheaper to hire and adjunct rather than pay a graduate student's stipend). Second, you must define what you mean by "underemployed;" I'm not sure what you mean by it. Also, I think your statements are specific to certain fields, and also to graduates of certain programs. For example, I know that Ph.D. graduates in the humanities (english, history, philosophy, etc) are having a tough time finding academic jobs, especially when they are graduates of lower-ranked programs. On the other hand, graduates of more established programs in the social and natural sciences are doing a bit better. Also it is worth noting that simply making it through a PhD program does not entitle anyone to a high-end academic job.

Overall, your additions demonstrate a clear POV. I think it would be useful to include some things about jobs and funding, but the things you wrote simply won't do. I think you should rewrite them in the most objective, neutral way possible and add them to the appropriate country section, also taking into account the differences among programs, schools, and fields of study. Until then, your additions will continue to be reverted by the various editors of wikipedia (and a few automated scripts that will prevent multiple reversions). -Nick^talk 04:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

The article has been semi-protected for a week. Please use the talk page to discuss contentious edits. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Latin vs Greek

Although philosophia has classical Greek origins, the abbreviation PhD is short for the Latin philosophiae doctor, because Latin was the language used by the mediaeval scholars, and by the older universities (eg Oxford, Cambridge, etc) in the names of their degrees (eg magister in artibus, doctor divinitatis). I'll modify Greek → Latin in the opening sentence of this article if nobody has any objections. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PhD in Latin

I was under the impression that it really stood for Post-honoris Doctor

Then I'm afraid you were mistaken. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

duration in the US seems understimated

The article currently says, completion of a Ph.D. program usually takes four to eight years of study after the Bachelor's Degree for the United States. According to the NSF's 2006 report on U.S. doctorates, the figures are rather higher. Counting only registered semesters (e.g. not counting a year taken off to work as part of the time), the median is a little over 7 years for science and engineering, and just over 8 years for the humanities. That's the median, so half take longer. If you count total elapsed time from entering a PhD program to graduating (wall clock time, as we say in CS), the medians are much higher: 9 years for science & engineering, and 15 years for the humanities. --Delirium (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've got some proper, citeable sources, so please feel free to edit that section accordingly. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Later in that same section, the article mentions (with refs) that only 57% of students complete the degree within 10 years, 30% drop out, and 13% take more than 10 years. So perhaps 4-8 years is optimistic. But it seems to me that graduate students in any field who devote 100% of their time to the degree program (i.e., no outside work) should be able to finish within eight years. In my anecdotal experience, the people I know who took longer than that had part-time jobs, took time off, or even took full-time teaching jobs while still being registered as a grad student. At the same time, it is quite possible for some to finish in four years, and many have. So perhaps changing the statement to say "four to eight years of full-time study" might be more accurate? And then this extra info can be added to show the range of actual time taken to complete. -Nick^talk 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

JD juris doctor

The Juris Doctor is a Harvard degree developed in the 20th century. Please correct the History part that establishes that the JD was an award before the 20th century —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.37.175 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

history section inconsistant/unclear

In the history section is says: "From the United States the degree spread to Canada in 1900, and then to the United Kingdom in 1917.[5] This displaced the existing Doctor of Philosophy degree in some universities." This suggest there is a distinction between 'the degree' and 'Doctor of Philosophy degree', but no distinction has been made. (The article is a disambiguation of 'D.Phil.') I would suggest modifying that line to: "From the United States the title Ph.D. spread to Canada in 1900, and then to the United Kingdom in 1917." Quantum liam (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right that this is a little unclear, but what it actually means is that the new (to the UK) Doctor of Philosophy degree displaced an existing, distinct degree with the same name - a higher doctorate on a par with the DLitt, DSc, etc. I'm not sure exactly which universities awarded this degree (maybe one or more of the four ancient Scottish universities) but I'll see if I can find out. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr.Phil. abbreviation

I'm in two minds about mentioning the German abbreviation Dr.Phil. On the one hand, I feel it maybe should be included as it's the correct abbreviation for the German degree of Doctor of Philosophy, and since this article does have a section about German practice (which currently does list the Dr.Phil. abbreviation) perhaps it should also be ok to mention Dr.Phil. at the beginning of the article. (Also, I understand there's an American television personality called Dr Phil, and from time to time someone thinks it's funny to include a reference to him. Included a proprly-cited reference to the genuine abbreviation Dr.Phil. might stop this happening in future.) On the other hand, I don't feel anywhere near strongly about it to get into a prolonged or heated argument, so if other people have good reasons why it should be omitted then I'm entirely happy to go along with them. I'll tentatively restore it, pending further discussion, but won't push the point if anyone wants to revert. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel the need for a heated argument. The points against including it in the lead are pretty simple: it's not a term used in English (this is English wikipedia after all), and "DPhil and similar" covers it pretty well. The confusion with Dr. Phil just tips it over the edge. I would be curious to hear what other people think. Hairhorn (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My first thought when the page loaded was that it was vanalized. So... I didn't think I could take the rest of the article seriously. 199.43.32.85 (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above; I thought the page was vandalised. A mention under Germany and Scandanavia makes sense, but I think it shouldn't be in the lead.--MotleyPhule 02:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(no) Value and criticisms

what's up with the Value and criticisms section? I see criticisms but practically nothing about value, it is currently written as if doing a PhD will ruin your life, but i'm sure it has some value. some ideas:

• value in North America does not equal value throughout the world
• PhD's have varying value depending on field, with some fields are desperate for experts
• job security may be different to job availability (hard to get a job but once you are in you are unlikely to lose it for eg. or vice versa)
• Industry jobs and income V's research.

- --Hypo Mix (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you Hypo Mix. It seems to me that this is a synopsis of a single article from the Economist, which was itself accused of being biased. I remember reading it myself.

I think all the details relating to this one Economist opinion piece should be deleted. E.g. the pnozi scheme thing is a ridiculous piece of hyperbole - fine in a newspaper, but not an encyclopedia.

I think references to the value of a PhD are interesting. There must be a lot of economic analysis of this kind of stuff, but it could be described much more balanced than this.

I would suggest you delete the section entirely, or just leave one or two sentences which give a balanced picture.Chogg (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, unless there is any objections i think this article should be trimmed down so it gets to the point faster rather than painting a doomsday picture of the PhD "ie: the economist argued that phd's may not...blablabla..." then "however X found that PhD students are more likely to ...bla bla bla" --Hypo Mix (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed it some more and started with the value. The point of a PhD is rarely the financial return to the student, so it seemed inappropriate to begin with this. I think the section is a much better representation than when it started with a much wider set of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chogg (talk • contribs) 00:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

while i'm at it the image

i think that image should be removed because it does not show PhD students, it show batch. or at highest masters student.... makes it looks like hundreds of people get PhD every graduation ceremony. agree? --Hypo Mix (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No. I have tried to put a more relevant picture (that was a valid point), but I must say that simply removing a picture is hardly the default solution. I really do think wikipedia suffers when text and pictures are deleted when they could have been improved.

I also would somewhat object to the trimming of some very relevant criticisms from the article. I will bring back a few points I think shouldn't be missed. Worst case we make this a seperate "Criticisms" section, which many pages have. Let me know what you guys think.

More research about the value of PhDs would be great and welcome in that section as always!-Tesseract²(talk) 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue wasn't the information but the weight given to it, considering its predominantly from one (I'm told bias) American article talking about American PhD's. I agree that criticisms shouldn't be removed, but it should be 50/50. Just for information sake PhD graduates would dress like this, not with a mortar board hat. --Hypo Mix (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually just realized the section has been changed since i first comment on it, take my last comment with a grain of salt.--Hypo Mix (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I reckon this section still needs some work. There are only two sources, one of which is a current-affairs magazine with a particular (and stated) editorial bias which requires its research to be taken 'with a grain of salt'. Despite this, the selections quoted from The Economist on here seem less biased than the actual article itself, which concedes that doctoral students '[pursue] their subject out of love... Some give little thought to where the qualification might lead' and that 'education is an end in itself'. There is also something of a North American-centric bias in this section of the article, which I believe is discouraged by Wikipedia.

As well as all this, the realisation that 'pre-2000 data' is perhaps pretty close to being out of date makes me feel old! Benson85 (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot where i read it (but it was in wikipedia) i found that people with PhD are the highest earning group in the USA (higher than most professionals). Any one know where that stat was from? --Hypo Mix (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

article

Found this article http://mobile.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/what_is_the_value_of_a_science_phd_is_graduate_school_worth_the_effort_.html It is a good summery of the benefits of a PhD. I'll dump it here for now. --Hypo Mix (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge with "Doctorate", at least partially

It's confusing to have Doctorate and PhD, I would be inclined to merge them. If merging is not appropriate, I would still consider some partial merging, as for instance both articles maintain a list of the use in each country... but many of those uses are copied from one another, having to maintain two descriptions of the same thing (see for instance the Spain section in both articles, where one is more updated than the other). --Samer.hc (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Funding of PHD in Argentina

The article lacks of information about the funding given by public organizations (CONICET, ANPCYT, public universities) to the students, which permits full dedication to them. The amount of funding during the last years ("Kirchnerists" governments) was significatively increased respect to the amount given by previous administrations, at the point that the number of phd students funded by the State increased by the factor of 2-3 in a few years (and this is one of the major items when the government wants to praise itself). This also is a matter of debate in the present times, given that the amount of funding has rached a plateau, and as a consequence, a lot of applicants (who growed the hope of being employed as phd students when graduated) are being rejected in the recent applications (2011 and 2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.135.31.242 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)