Physics My goal of a Physics R&D Career with only a Bachelor's degree

[Albino173]

I graduated in 2016 with my Physics BS and Electronics Engineering BS. Ever since I started the physics major I knew I wanted to go into a research and development job like at a lab. Not really interested in being a teacher except maybe college since professors have opportunities for doing their own research. The Summer before my last year at college I accepted an Electrical Engineer job that I would have when I graduated so it was a great deal to have a STEM job out of college.

I don't use any physics knowledge at my engineer job and I really want to get back into the physics game. The problem is I only have a BS and I don't have any physics work experience. I definitely would like to get my Master's or maybe a Ph.D. in physics but it has been so long since I have used any knowledge from school that I am very behind in being able to do well on the PGRE in the first place. I am currently trying to self-study my college textbooks to relearn what I should know at a Bachelors's level.

I live in the central Washington state area (as well as most of my family) and my current prospects are the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland for a job and Washington State University in Pullman for continued education since it isn't extremely far away. I've talked to the recruiter at the lab and he said without any physics experience I just have to wait for an entry-level position to open up. It would be nice to at least have a physics-based job to get my head back in the game while preparing for more college. Or the other option is to go to WSU first to get a Master's which should open up my options. I am also married with a baby on the way.

Advice?

 

[Choppy]

One question might be how much of this is stemming from a deep rooted desire to pursue more physics and how much of it is simply not being happy with what you're currently doing? If it's been 4 years and you're just now thinking about graduate school, that would seem to indicate a little more of the latter than the former.

So graduate school... it's not unreasonable to get back into the game after a year or two hiatus, but after 4+ years, your academic "muscles" are likely to have atrophied somewhat and it might be worth taking a refresher course as the senior undergraduate level just to gauge whether or not this is really a path you want to pursue. You also have a 2- soon to be 3-body problem. While living on a graduate school stipend is generally feasible for a single person, it's a lot harder to support a family on. You'll have to make sure that your spouse is fully supportive of this move. That's not to mention the time dedication. When you have to spend all your waking time preparing for your PGRE, comprehensive exam, candidacy exam, committee meetings, conference presentations, thesis defense, etc. there won't be a lot left over for your to tag in on parenting duties. And this can put a real strain on your family life. So this is a decision that you and your spouse should make together and will likely have to continue to make on an ongoing basis once confronted with the realities of parenthood.
(I'm not trying to talk you out of anything here - just laying out the cards.)

As far as getting a job with a lab... it might be important to keep in mind that there are likely a lot of options available to you as an engineer that involve research and development, other than working in a physics lab. The people who assist in labs at the BSc level tend not to be doing a lot of the "physicsy-stuff" and instead do a lot more of the "technical" stuff. But of course a lot depends on your own definition of "physicsy-stuff" and perhaps more importantly, what you'll actually be happy doing. So why not do some research and cast around a little? Contact some former class mates and see what they're doing, if they're happy, what skills they're using.

And keep in mind how competitive academia is. To a rough approximation there are an order of magnitude more PhD graduates than there are academic positions, and so most PhDs end up leaving academia. As a general rule, they end up doing okay for themselves, but would you be happy spending the next 6 years in graduate school if ultimately you ended up in a position that you're qualified for right now?

 

[Albino173]

Thanks for the input, Choppy. The tricky thing about your first question is it's really a combination of both. I've had a deep rooted desire to pursue physics since I graduated and only took the job I have now to pay for my last year of college and be able to more easily support my family as I was about to get married as well. My boss asked that I work there for 5+ years so I could contribute instead of "just get 2 years experience and leave" but I've actually been working on my exit strategy since I started. I just don't have as solid of an exit plan as I would have liked by now.

My wife has been supportive of the idea of me pursuing more education and she actually suggested the idea of getting a BS level job first and work my way up and possibly get a Master's to make myself more valuable to return to the same company as a physicist.

The comment about "physicsy stuff" vs "technical stuff" is an interesting one. I started out going to college really interested in electronics and wanted to ultimately build and design "technical" things but the Electronics Engineering Technology major I entered really failed me so doubling in Physics really got me more interested in that. A friend recently helped me realize that with only a Physics BS, my interests are a little too broad so I'm not super sure what I want to go into. This obviously could be helped by getting deeper schooling from a Master's, or like you said, looking at other jobs I currently qualify for. My current strong interests are quantum mechanics, high energy particle physics, low temperature condensed matter, electronics, and chemistry.

 

[hutchphd]

With a company of the proper size and process it is sometimes easier to do less restrictive work. I am thinking of maybe 10 to 20 people on staff where people have multiple responsibilities and several projects going. In that environment it is possible to learn by osmosis from your peers. If the company really grows they may be happy to fund pieces of your reeducation. I am just pointing out that your choice is not quite as binary as you think. But it is clearly time for you to make a move.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I have some bad news for you - entry-level physicists at national labs compete for the same talent as university junior faculty. There won't be any entry-level physicist positions for BS physicists. Sure, they will hire BS grads, but the jobs will not lead into the "physicist" stream.

More bad news: getting a MS won't make you substantially more competitive (directly) for grad school. Indirectly it will probably help you with the PGRE.

While it is possible to get a national lab to pay for advanced schooling, usually the deal is not "go off and finish your schooling, and if you don't find a better job elsewhere afterwards, we'll take you back with a promotion." It's more often a case where you take a course, and then another, and so on. I don't want to say it's impossible: I know someone who has done it. It took her 21 years.

You sound unwilling/unable to relocate. That is also going to be an obstacle. It substantially narrows your options for grad school. Then it will again narrow your options for postdocs. Then it will again narrow your options for second postdocs. Then it will again narrow your options for a permanent position.

 

[gleem]

Check this list (from the American Institute of Physics) of 63 Companies in Washington state that have hired BS physics grads. https://www.aip.org/statistics/washington

 

[CrysPhys]

OP: I think you should reformulate your question from "Goal of Physics R&D Career with Only a Bachelor's Degree" to "Goal of Physics R&D Career". That is, since you now have work experience as an electrical engineer, and are not satisfied with your current career, you should have some notion of what career you would find satisfying. E.g., if you want a career in physics as a lead investigator (whether in academics, industry, or government lab), you will typically need a PhD (as usual, there are outliers). In which case, your current focus should be on getting admitted to a decent grad school, rather than finding a job as an entry-level technician or research assistant in a physics lab.

 

[clope023]

Vanadium's example is (as is the usual) overly pessimistic.

Myself and other colleagues essentially have this role with 'only' bachelors in Physics (I did double major in Electrical Engineering).

I'm a multi-physics modeling and simulation engineer in an R&D lab; this mostly entails Finite Element Analysis, some Computational Fluid Dynamics, and even circuit modeling in SPICE; along with programming (MATLAB, Python) for data analysis and specialty programs for visualization.

Most of this I learned on the job.

For physics majors or theoretically minded engineers who want something applied but still uses physics they learned in school I think this is a very good career option (assuming you don't mind banging your head against a computer all day).

They do pay for grad school; there are fellowship opportunities where they'll let you split work and school time during a standard 40 hour work week (especially if your research coincides with something work is interested in, that's how I'm doing thesis work) but for the most part your schooling is after regular work hours.

Note there's lots of physics to be done in engineering schools, so don't necessarily discount going that route.

It is NOT going to take 20 years to do grad school while working, (I'll be getting my Masters in Aerospace Engineering in about 4 years; taking about 1 class a semester at night, sometimes I took summer classes and sometimes I didn't).

Doing at the pace described above, a PhD is going take longer than if you were a full time student, so something on the order of 6-10 years; my boss did his PhD this way and that's how i'll be doing it, so it can be done.
Good luck.

 

[jasonRF]

It is NOT going to take 20 years to do grad school while working, (I'll be getting my Masters in Aerospace Engineering in about 4 years; taking about 1 class a semester at night, sometimes I took summer classes and sometimes I didn't).

Doing at the pace described above, a PhD is going take longer than if you were a full time student, so something on the order of 6-10 years; my boss did his PhD this way and that's how i'll be doing it, so it can be done.

10 years ago it took full-time students an average of 6.3 years to complete a physics PhD
Trends in Physics PhDs | American Institute of Physics (aip.org)
I suspect today's statistics aren't that different. Sure, you will find a few part-time students that might complete one just as fast. However, those people are exceptions. If the OP is trying to plan ahead for his family's future, assuming a part-time PhD will be completed in as few as 6 years is not very realistic. There might be specific departments and/or research groups that have a history of getting part-time students through quickly, but for most of us the majority of PhD timeline is spent on research and it isn't clear how you speed that up.

jason

 

[clope023]

10 years ago it took full-time students an average of 6.3 years to complete a physics PhD
Trends in Physics PhDs | American Institute of Physics (aip.org)
I suspect today's statistics aren't that different. Sure, you will find a few part-time students that might complete one just as fast. However, those people are exceptions. If the OP is trying to plan ahead for his family's future, assuming a part-time PhD will be completed in as few as 6 years is not very realistic. There might be specific departments and/or research groups that have a history of getting part-time students through quickly, but for most of us the majority of PhD timeline is spent on research and it isn't clear how you speed that up.

jason

As far as I'm aware the average is something like 5.5 but national average might be higher. Some topics will go by quicker than others, especially if you don't really have an experimental component (my own example is almost purely computational). I agree though 6 years is probably unrealistically optimistic (depending on the school's post bachelors credit requirements), 8-10+ in this part-time manner is more realistic but not 20.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You can complain that the 21 was pessimistic, but that's what it took her. That's the data point.

It's also what you get if you assume one can work 1/3 time and a 7 year "normal" time.

 

[StatGuy2000]

You can complain that the 21 was pessimistic, but that's what it took her. That's the data point.

It's also what you get if you assume one can work 1/3 time and a 7 year "normal" time.

21 years to complete a PhD in any field (including physics) is very unusual.

In my alma mater, PhD students are typically timed out after 6 years (their funding will usually not be renewed and they will often be forced to leave the program unless if the student applies for an exemption or extension). Most students usually finish their PhDs anywhere between 4 to 6 years (note: in Canada, students in STEM fields, including physics, typically complete a Masters degree as a prerequisite to entering PhD programs, although students can be admittedly directly into a PhD program).

And part-time PhD studies in Canada are unusual (I have heard of it for math students, but not for physics).

 

[clope023]

And part-time PhD studies in Canada are unusual (I have heard of it for math students, but not for physics).

It's far from the norm; but I'd say when it does happen it's more than likely going to be in engineering or STEM subjects where the research is related to an engineering application. I've met several people both in govt and industry who've completed their advanced degrees working part time on sponsored disertations while working and they were various flavors of engineering (some applied math and applied physics).

 

[Vanadium 50]

1 years to complete a PhD in any field (including physics) is very unusual.

Sure, but so is working at it part-time with a full-time regular job. There aren't that many data points there.

 

[CrysPhys]

As far as I'm aware the average is something like 5.5 but national average might be higher. Some topics will go by quicker than others, especially if you don't really have an experimental component (my own example is almost purely computational). I agree though 6 years is probably unrealistically optimistic (depending on the school's post bachelors credit requirements), 8-10+ in this part-time manner is more realistic but not 20.

<<Emphasis added.>> What population are you referring to whose average is "something like 5.5"? People you know?

 

[CrysPhys]

21 years to complete a PhD in any field (including physics) is very unusual.

In my alma mater, PhD students are typically timed out after 6 years (their funding will usually not be reviewed and they will often be forced to leave the program unless if the student applies for an exemption or extension). Most students usually finish their PhDs anywhere between 4 to 6 years (note: in Canada, students in STEM fields, including physics, typically complete a Masters degree as a prerequisite to entering PhD programs, although students can be admittedly directly into a PhD program).

And part-time PhD studies in Canada are unusual (I have heard of it for math students, but not for physics).

<<Emphasis added.>> In the US, it is common to enter a physics PhD program upon completion of a BS; an MS is typically not required. How many years does it typically take to complete a BS to MS program in Canada? That interval would need to be tacked on to the 4 - 6 yr interval for the MS to PhD program.

 

[CrysPhys]

It's far from the norm; but I'd say when it does happen it's more than likely going to be in engineering or STEM subjects where the research is related to an engineering application. I've met several people both in govt and industry who've completed their advanced degrees working part time on sponsored disertations while working and they were various flavors of engineering (some applied math and applied physics).

<<Emphasis added.>> This point needs to be highlighted and emphasized for the OP: Is it possible to work on a PhD part time and complete the program in a reasonable period of time (where reasonable is, for the sake of argument, about the same as, or a few years longer than, that of a full time student)? Yes. Are such programs readily available? No.

In days gone by, Megacorps R&D labs such as AT&T Bell Labs and IBM Watson Research Labs had such sponsored programs. The labs sometimes gave grant money to university professors; and lab staff sometimes were adjunct faculty and served as co-advisors. Part of the research could even be done in the corporate labs. So "part time" was really not quite part time: the PhD research was essentially a full-time assignment. But even in their glory days, the number of such slots was very small.

 

[StatGuy2000]

<<Emphasis added.>> In the US, it is common to enter a physics PhD program upon completion of a BS; an MS is typically not required. How many years does it typically take to complete a BS to MS program in Canada? That interval would need to be tacked on to the 4 - 6 yr interval for the MS to PhD program.

Typically it takes about 4 years to complete a BS program in Canada (5 years if the student is enrolled in co-op degree programs offered at select Canadian universities e.g. University of Waterloo, where students alternate between studies and study-related work experiences).

A MS program typically takes either 1 or 2 years to complete, depending on the university and the specific program(s) involved.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It's far from the norm; but I'd say when it does happen it's more than likely going to be in engineering or STEM subjects where the research is related to an engineering application. I've met several people both in govt and industry who've completed their advanced degrees working part time on sponsored disertations while working and they were various flavors of engineering (some applied math and applied physics).

You raise a good point. I have personally known people who have completed their PhD studies while working in industry (for example, I knew several students finishing their PhD in statistics while being employed at my company).

However, these students were in programs where the work they did (in industry, government labs, medical labs, etc.) were directly related to the area of research. And these students would thus be pursuing their doctoral studies in applied areas (e.g. engineering, computer science, statistics, certain medical research areas, certain sub-specialties of economics).

This would not apply to most research areas within physics, nor in areas like pure math (or even many branches of "applied" math).

 

[Zap]

I just got a job offer to work as a research physicist, and I only have a master's degree, in which I did not even complete a thesis. They should have contacted me a few years ago, then I would have accepted. So, yea, it is possible to be a physicist without a PhD.

How did I get the job offer? I graduated around two years ago, and I guess during that time the economy has shifted somewhat and a defense contactor eager to hire physicists contacted the department head at my school who then recommended me.

The only negative here is that most careers you are eligible for as a physicist outside of academia is related to making bombs for the military. That's not really something I'm interested in these days, but if they had caught me two years ago, I would have jumped on the opportunity.

 

[Zap]

It's with the US army. Should I take a small cut in salary and go for it? They are also hiring bachelor's level physics majors. You can PM me and I can get you in touch with the recruiters. They are hiring a ton of physicists right now. If you don't mind living in the middle of a desert in the middle of nowhere, I'm sure they'll take you.

 

[Vanadium 50]

With the US Army or in the US Army? The experiences can be...quite different.

And, what do an Annapolis midshipman and a West Point cadet have in common? They both were accepted to West Point.

 

[Zap]

with

I never found any physics related job as a soldier in the military. The closest thing I found was supposedly a "nuclear physicist" position in the Navy, that would probably be involved with the power plants on submarines, but could have been a bate and switch.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

with

I never found any physics related job as a soldier in the military. The closest thing I found was supposedly a "nuclear physicist" position in the Navy, that would probably be involved with the power plants on submarines, but could have been a bate and switch.

The development and testing of almost all armor and weapons systems is physics related.

 

[Zap]

The development and testing of almost all armor and weapons systems is physics related.

Yes, of course, but typically defense contractors hire civilian physicists to work on that sort of stuff for the military. I didn't see a job like that as an active duty soldier. And if there was a job like that, than the multiple recruiters a talked to were horrible at their jobs. That was one of the reasons why I didn't join. They would talk about getting jobs in R&D developing cool stuff as you mention, but after their service, as a veteran.

I was told, "You want a job at Raytheon?" And I would respond, "yea." And then they would say, "After your 4 years of service, you'll get one."

I'm not saying it's impossible to find an R&D type job as an active-duty soldier, but that's something I did try to find and did not.

But, I'm not really into that stuff, anymore. So, I don't regret my choice not to join.

 

[Dr Transport]

I'm not saying it's impossible to find an R&D type job as an active-duty soldier, but that's something I did try to find and did not.

If you want an R&D job as an active duty soldier/sailor/marine/airman you need to apply to be a commissioned officer. You can then possibly get assigned to one of the Research Labs AFRL, NRL, ARL or their affiliated units. That's how you get an R&D position in the service. You just can't walk in off the streets and enlist in one.

 

[Zap]

You just can't walk in off the streets and enlist in one.

Not sure what you mean by that. If there is an R&D position as an active duty soldier, I would like to see a link to one.

 

[Dr Transport]

Not sure what you mean by that. If there is an R&D position as an active duty soldier, I would like to see a link to one.

There isn't a direct "Enlist for an R&D" position. You have to play the game and work your way into a position. If you join the Air Force and get a commission i.e., become an officer, and work it, you can get yourself assigned to AFRL, from there when it comes time, they'll send you to AFIT for a Masters or a PhD then you'll be assigned to R&D billets.

 

[Jody]

I don't think I've seen those positions listed, but I can confirm while I was working in aerospace & defense those positions existed and I worked with some of those folks. Some of those people even had their own cubicle areas in my work area... just their badge showed their affiliation elsewhere ie. military branch.

 

[Zap]

How does someone get into one of those positions if they are not listed and the military recruiters don't even know about them? Just by luck?

 

[Vanadium 50]

You don't get them on the day you start. You start out doing something else and transition into them.

 

[Zap]

I remember after my physics degree, my parents were yelling at me to find a job like that in the military, but since they were not listed and no recruiter could confirm their existence, I was convinced that they did not exist and did not enlist. I wouldn't have enlisted without having a guaranteed position like that, though. Otherwise, I would have assumed the military was baiting me or that it would be a matter of random chance whether or not I'd end up in a position like that.

 

[russ_watters]

How does someone get into one of those positions if they are not listed and the military recruiters don't even know about them? Just by luck?

The purpose of a recruiter is primarily to fill enlistment quotas. They wouldn't necessarily know anything about what jobs are available for 10+ year officers. That's just now what they are for.

I remember after my physics degree, my parents were yelling at me to find a job like that in the military, but since they were not listed and no recruiter could confirm their existence, I was convinced that they did not exist and did not enlist. I wouldn't have enlisted without having a guaranteed position like that, though. Otherwise, I would have assumed the military was baiting me or that it would be a matter of random chance whether or not I'd end up in a position like that.

I don't think you're understanding military hierarchy or maybe even the military in general. Enlisted and officers are totally separate career tracks and neither are anything like signing up for a traditional civilian job. You are right that jobs like that for enlisted do not exist. Jobs for officers do, but typically you have to pay your dues a bit in the military before getting one. The only exception I can think of is for doctors (and maybe lawyers).

 

[Zap]

Well, I mentioned considering joining the military after my physics degree, so it was for an officer position. I guess I just had horrible recruiters. Don't know. The army told me that they mainly do logistic stuff, and the Navy wanted me to do some submarine thing, which sounded like being a nuclear technician or quality control guy. I couldn't find any information on the secret R&D jobs. If someone had pointed to at least one position that was remotely like an R&D job, I probably would have joined. I remain skeptical, but I'm sure those jobs are probably out there somewhere.

 

[Dr Transport]

I've worked with officers who worked in R&D billets. Some did R&D themselves, most did a combination of R&D along with program management. None were fresh off the streets, even the youngest of the bunch had about 5 years in the service before getting assigned to that type of job. All of them were sent to the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) for a masters degree a couple went on to get their PhD, that was their career track going forward. All of them were in regular units for 3-5 years prior to going to AFIT.

These were coveted positions, people worked for them, none were given to them because they asked, they earned it.

 

[Zap]

I was skeptical of the existence of those positions, not whether one is deserving of one of them or not. I personally wouldn't join the military if my goal was to be an R&D physicist, but I suppose it could lead someone to that goal somewhere down the line.

Also, if someone had simply asked if such a position existed, I would think the recruiter would inform them of a potential career path. I am not saying at all that I feel like I deserve to have a position like that. I'm only saying that no one has ever been able to point me to a specific R&D position in the military, so I was kind of forced to conclude that they didn't exist lol.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's USAF designator 61D.

 

[Zap]

Okay, so that's a physicist/nuclear engineer in the Air Force, if I'm not mistaken. But isn't that position just like quality control and technician stuff on the nuclear reactors aboard the aircraft carriers? That may be the only physics relayed job that I did hear about, which is concerned with the nuclear reactors on the aircraft carriers. They might do some R&D. I'm not sure. I had an awful suspicion that nuclear engineering would be similar to the mind numbing job I had as a research assistant, which was to do repeated quality control checks on chemical instruments. Maybe that's what R&D is ...

 

[Vanadium 50]

But isn't that position just like quality control and technician stuff on the nuclear reactors aboard the aircraft carriers?

The Air Force doesn't have aircraft carriers.

 

[Zap]

Ah, I confused it with nuclear engineer in the Navy.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I mentioned considering joining the military after my physics degree, so it was for an officer position. I guess I just had horrible recruiters.

No; again, you evidently just kept asking recruiters, who are assigned to recruit enlisted people, instead of investigating the officer track. Looking into the wrong path won't provide you information on the path you want. It's like going to a car dealership and asking to buy a house. The best you might do is have them try to sell you a campervan. Perhaps an extra-nice recruiter would have explained it to you, but he's trying to sell you the path he's assigned to sell.

I don't think any of this is relevant anyway; it doesn't sound like you really want to be in the military*. You are just looking for a civilian-style job with a military rank and pay. The military doesn't work that way. You're always a soldier/airman/sailor first, and the needs of the military come first. Jobs tend to be temporary and rotate.

*Edit: Which is fine. The military isn't for everyone and it's a very bad idea to join if you don't really want to be there.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I'm not saying it's impossible to find an R&D type job as an active-duty soldier, but that's something I did try to find and did not.

Most of the military personnel we're known and worked with on physics-related stuff have been officers rather than enlisted.

 

[Zap]

I definitely do not want to join the military. I had considered it a few years ago, during graduate school. During this time, I searched for a position I might like in the military, and spoke to a few recruiters, but didn't find anything of interest. I was pretty close to going in as a submarine officer, but I eventually declined to move forward with it. I do not regret that decision at all.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I don't think any of this is relevant anyway; it doesn't sound like you really want to be in the military*. You are just looking for a civilian-style job with a military rank and pay.

Is military pay supposed to be a positive here?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw1_ebDeTRbzZB2FjmMyf_97

There are... 176 61Ds in the air force? That sounds like a tough job to get. If you were talking to an officer recruiter you should be glad they didn't pretend you were going to get one.

 

[russ_watters]

Is military pay supposed to be a positive here?

Well, it's infinity better than no pay.

If you were talking to an officer recruiter...

As I said to Zap (repeatedly), I'm pretty sure there's no such thing.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Actually, there are officer recruiters, but they are not what you think when you think "recruiter". They aren't someone who sits in a tiny office trying to get a wide-eyed farm boy to sign a contract so he can "see the world". A lot of what they do is prepare information for the web, brochures, etc. I'm sure the page where I looked up 61D (the Navy's system is much more sensible) was created by or at least vetted by an officer recruiter.

I am actually surprised there are as many as 176 61D's out there. Most of what they do is the D of R&D - answering the question "what would it take to turn this idea into a product we can use?" Because of that, they want people who have done real "Air Force work", and this is part of the purchasing and acquisition community. I met one guy in this community who was working on how one might use additive manufacturing to reduce the number of parts that need to be forward deployed. And, maybe more importantly, how does one write a list of requirements so that the Air Force can tell if a given product meets their needs.

 

[PAllen]

Sure, but so is working at it part-time with a full-time regular job. There aren't that many data points there.

I also have a data point to support this. A good friend's initial Phd topic just didn't work out, and then they got an opportunity to work as journalist in a UN science journal with the background they had. This job involved moving from US to Europe, which she did. But she never let go of the Phd idea, remained in contact with her department, and got a Phd while working full time abroad well over 20 years later (with half dozen US visits to coordinate with the department, the last being her thesis defense). That actually allowed immediate promotion within the UN hierarchy.

 

[Zap]

At my school, the PhD courses were research credit hours. So, you basically had to pay for certain amount of research credit hours, in which you would work per week on your thesis. These hours were always part time, unless you actually wanted to pay for more, which doesn't make sense to do. You then, if lucky, got paid as a research assistant, which was something approximating an actual job. The work you did as a research assistant did not always align with your thesis work. So, the research credit hours took the place of normal class credit hours, which was time allotted toward your thesis, and you were given (if lucky) a part time job as a research assistant, to maybe pay for those research hours, and some basic living expenses (if lucky).