Programs Just wondering (concerning PHD Studentships).

  • Thread starter Thread starter Noo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Phd
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the distinctions between Studentship PhDs and Non-Studentship PhDs, particularly from a UK perspective. Non-Studentship PhDs require self-funding or external funding, allowing students to choose their research topics, and typically involve teaching responsibilities with a longer completion timeframe of up to seven years. In contrast, Studentship PhDs are often tied to specific research areas defined by university faculty, generally last three to four years, and provide funding for tuition and a stipend, but do not typically allow students to lecture undergraduates.Participants noted that while there may be more PhDs attained as Non-Studentships, many students in certain departments are on Studentships, which are viewed positively by institutions and businesses. The competitive nature of securing a Studentship can enhance its prestige, suggesting that it is not held in lower regard compared to Non-Studentships. Overall, the primary difference lies in funding and research topic flexibility, with no significant academic disparity between the two.
Noo
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
I'm hoping for a UK perspective on this; though perhaps there is little difference between that and a US one.

The details of and difference between Studentship PHDs and Non-Studentship PHDs are vague in my mind - so, i'll offer my current understanding for you to annihilate.


Non-Studentship:

You self-fund (or find funding from elsewhere) research in a subject of your chosing (provided your University has a research interest in a closely-related field?).

You are expected to (always do?) teach a few classes each semester, and are paid a little for that.

You may allow yourself up to 7 years to complete the PHD (paying an annual fee for each of those).


Studentship:

You (generally) have little choice of research area - rather the University faculty specify a research interest, advertise for research staff (i.e. you) in that field, and if you share that interest you might apply.

Generally a set time-scale of 3 or 4 years.

Do NOT lecture undergrads at the University (strictly?).





And - to generalise - those who attain a non-studentship PHD are those who either; can not find a suitable studentship/are not accepted to any, or; those who desire to research a very particular area and can find funding with relative ease.


A few direct questions:

How many applicants is a University likely to have for any given studentship?

I have very little data, but i must presume there to be many more PHDs attained than Studentships available - therefore the majority of PHDs are attained as non-studentships?

Are Studentships held in lower regard by Institutes/business? (I'm trying to find downsides of Studentships, relative to non-studentships, other than possible restrictions on research topic).



That'll be all for now - thanks in advance to anyone willing to share wisdom
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Noo said:
I'm hoping for a UK perspective on this; though perhaps there is little difference between that and a US one.

On this topic, there is quite a big difference between the US and the UK.

You self-fund (or find funding from elsewhere) research in a subject of your chosing (provided your University has a research interest in a closely-related field?).

You are expected to (always do?) teach a few classes each semester, and are paid a little for that.

Students can't, in general, give lectures in the UK. As a PhD student, regardless of whether on a studentship or not, you can run tutorials and undertake marking (i.e. be a TA, to coin an American phrase), for which you get paid an hourly wage.

You may allow yourself up to 7 years to complete the PHD (paying an annual fee for each of those).
I don't know of a time limit, but I would advise one to finish a PhD well within 7 years!
Studentship:

You (generally) have little choice of research area - rather the University faculty specify a research interest, advertise for research staff (i.e. you) in that field, and if you share that interest you might apply.

I don't know that this is true. At least in my field, the department advertises for PhD students to work in the general area of expertise of the department, and a successful student will obtain a studentship (if the department has any to give, and the student is sufficiently qualified). If you're looking to work on something that doesn't match the research interests of the department, then you have to ask why you're applying there!

Generally a set time-scale of 3 or 4 years.
You get a stipend and your fees are paid for 3 or 4 years. After this time, you will have to start paying fees and will not receive a stipend, so it's advantageous to finish before this time.

Do NOT lecture undergrads at the University (strictly?).
See above.
How many applicants is a University likely to have for any given studentship?

Depends hugely on the field. I think there were ~12 applicants for my position.

I have very little data, but i must presume there to be many more PHDs attained than Studentships available - therefore the majority of PHDs are attained as non-studentships?
I don't think this is true. In my department, I'd estimate around 80% of students were on a studentship of some kind.
Are Studentships held in lower regard by Institutes/business? (I'm trying to find downsides of Studentships, relative to non-studentships, other than possible restrictions on research topic).
No. If anything, winning a competitive studentship should be held in a higher regard.
The details of and difference between Studentship PHDs and Non-Studentship PHDs are vague in my mind

To sum up, the only real difference between someone on a studentship and someone who is not is that the former gets his\her fees paid for by the studentship and receives a monthly stipend. There is no academic difference.
 
Last edited:
cristo said:
No. If anything, winning a competitive studentship should be held in a higher regard.

That does make sense.


Thanks cristo, cleared some stuff up.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
123
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
969
Back
Top