PHd - At Night

jennypeny

Hi All,

I have never thought about doing a PHd but I am interested in getting into lecturing and have been told that In order to stand a chance at getting a position I will need to hold one.

However I am not sure of a few things;

1- The difference between a thought / research PHd and which one would be better.
2- What I should actualy do the PHd in. I have a degree in Business and am ACCA qualified so would I have to do the PHd in finance or Business? Or do I choose to do it in Edication?
3- Is it possible to do a part time / Night PHd. I am working full time and would not be in a financial position to leave my job unless I had secured another one.

If anyone might point me in the direction I need or help with I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks:)

Roro4Brit

jennypeny wrote: »

Hi All,

I have never thought about doing a PHd but I am interested in getting into lecturing and have been told that In order to stand a chance at getting a position I will need to hold one.

However I am not sure of a few things;

1- The difference between a thought / research PHd and which one would be better.
2- What I should actualy do the PHd in. I have a degree in Business and am ACCA qualified so would I have to do the PHd in finance or Business? Or do I choose to do it in Edication?
3- Is it possible to do a part time / Night PHd. I am working full time and would not be in a financial position to leave my job unless I had secured another one.

If anyone might point me in the direction I need or help with I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks:)

Hi there,

There's a lot of info to give on this topic but I'll keep it brief

1. There is no such thing as a 'taught' PhD. There are PhD's where during the first year(s) that are certain modules you must take and pass such as research methods & ethics etc. However a PhD is about conducting unique research and producting a substantial research document in order to advance knowledge of your chosen field. As such, at least 95% of your time will be your own research.

2. The million dollar question! Most people say you must do a PhD in a topic you find truly intresting and exciting. The PhD life is tough (I know cos I started but decided it wasn't for me after 6 months). A lot of the time the only thing you have left doing a PhD is the love of your subject, and I know that wanes at times too. Also think career wise, what do you want to lecture in? If it's business.. then there are many areas you can PhD in - marketing, strategic management, innovation, and you are ACCA so finance and funding could be a whole other area that might interest you etc. YOU must pick this topic though, and after a lot of research and thought. I can't imagine anything worse than doing a PhD in a topic that was handed to you by someone else.

3. Of course you can do a PhD part time. I think the fees are somewhere in the region of 2000 p.a. When I left my full time one I did look in to this. It is apparently an extemely tough endevour that requires major dedication. I mean with my current career I hardly have time to do laundry at the moment, let alone dedicate 3-4 evenings + weekends to a PhD. But if your life is in the right place then it can, and has been done. I think the minimum time is 4.5 years to do it part time - but that's ambitious - you're probably looking at 6 years +.

Best of luck with it!

theredletter

Roro4Brit wrote: »

Hi there,

There's a lot of info to give on this topic but I'll keep it brief

1. There is no such thing as a 'taught' PhD. There are PhD's where during the first year(s) that are certain modules you must take and pass such as research methods & ethics etc. However a PhD is about conducting unique research and producting a substantial research document in order to advance knowledge of your chosen field. As such, at least 95% of your time will be your own research.

2. The million dollar question! Most people say you must do a PhD in a topic you find truly intresting and exciting. The PhD life is tough (I know cos I started but decided it wasn't for me after 6 months). A lot of the time the only thing you have left doing a PhD is the love of your subject, and I know that wanes at times too. Also think career wise, what do you want to lecture in? If it's business.. then there are many areas you can PhD in - marketing, strategic management, innovation, and you are ACCA so finance and funding could be a whole other area that might interest you etc. YOU must pick this topic though, and after a lot of research and thought. I can't imagine anything worse than doing a PhD in a topic that was handed to you by someone else.

3. Of course you can do a PhD part time. I think the fees are somewhere in the region of 2000 p.a. When I left my full time one I did look in to this. It is apparently an extemely tough endevour that requires major dedication. I mean with my current career I hardly have time to do laundry at the moment, let alone dedicate 3-4 evenings + weekends to a PhD. But if your life is in the right place then it can, and has been done. I think the minimum time is 4.5 years to do it part time - but that's ambitious - you're probably looking at 6 years +.

Best of luck with it!

There is such a thing known as a taught PhD programme, and they are getting more and more common. I know that there is at least two in one of the NUIs, including a DocEd. Structured PhDs will have modules and students will earn credits through attending conferences, writing papers and submitting reports. It's tedious, unhelpful and inefficient but it's the way things are going. I'm of the last traditional PhD bunch. This doesn't mean much, but mine will be known to have been more 'difficult' being unstructured and completely independent from modules. You could say that a structured PhD student has more work at the end of the day, but they have been handed research skills and other valuable tools that I have either discovered myself or was given the nudge by a supervisor.

Doing a PhD part-time is a silly idea... do it if you want to save money. At the end of the day you construct your own schedule. I taught around 17 hours last year so I felt as thought I was a part-time PhD student too, but I was technically full-time. It really doesn't matter at the end of the day which you choose... You'll still have to make your own schedule.

Roro4Brit

theredletter wrote: »

There is such a thing known as a taught PhD programme

News to me. As I said in my post, there are PhD's that require you to pass certain modules etc, these are 'structued' in that you need to amount a certain number of credits before you can submit - but surely you still have to do your entire research document to the same calibre as before - right?

If that's the way PhD's are going then I'm glad I got out when I did

theredletter

Roro4Brit wrote: »

News to me. As I said in my post, there are PhD's that require you to pass certain modules etc, these are 'structued' in that you need to amount a certain number of credits before you can submit - but surely you still have to do your entire research document to the same calibre as before - right?

If that's the way PhD's are going then I'm glad I got out when I did

Well, your thesis will have the most weight credit-wise. It could mean that some theses aren't as high in calibre as others in the sense that modules and other work has 'beefed' up the doctorate award. I'm considering discontinuing the PhD myself, but think I'll at least get an M.Litt out of it then go on to another MA or HDip. I'm doing research in the Humanities right now, so I'm consider converting to Psychology or Law as I've a huge interest in both. We'll see.

claire h

From what I know of structured PhDs the thesis is still very much the most important part. Professional doctorates like D.Eds. are a slightly different thing.

Dr Strange

claire h wrote: »

Professional doctorates like D.Eds. are a slightly different thing.

Correct, professional doctorates are on a different level to a PhD. A PhD shows you are an independent researcher and can design and carry out research projects from start to finish with publishable results.

This has recently been published by UCD. It contains a descriptor for research masters (page 7) and PhDs (page 10) to identify the expected outcome for each category of degree:

http://www.ucd.ie/registry/academicsecretariat/pol_grad_research_theses.pdf

Tom Dunne

Preusse wrote: »

Correct, professional doctorates are on a different level to a PhD.

Aren't professional doctorates level 10, the same as PhDs?

Dr Strange

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Aren't professional doctorates level 10, the same as PhDs?

Ah sorry, didn't mean that "level". I meant the type of work that has to be carried out in order to get these kind of degrees. Higher doctorates would, again, be different to the PhD and the professional doctorate.

Cavehill Red

jennypeny wrote: »

Hi All,

I have never thought about doing a PHd but I am interested in getting into lecturing and have been told that In order to stand a chance at getting a position I will need to hold one.

However I am not sure of a few things;

1- The difference between a thought / research PHd and which one would be better.
2- What I should actualy do the PHd in. I have a degree in Business and am ACCA qualified so would I have to do the PHd in finance or Business? Or do I choose to do it in Edication?
3- Is it possible to do a part time / Night PHd. I am working full time and would not be in a financial position to leave my job unless I had secured another one.

If anyone might point me in the direction I need or help with I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks:)

I for one am saddened at the prospect of a doctoral student and would-be third-level lecturer who is unable to spell the word 'education.'

Aquals

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I for one am saddened at the prospect of a doctoral student and would-be third-level lecturer who is unable to spell the word 'education.'

Misspelling words on an informal dicusssion board is no indicator of how capable someone would be at doing a PhD! PhD students are mortals too!

Cavehill Red

Aquals wrote: »

Misspelling words on an informal dicusssion board is no indicator of how capable someone would be at doing a PhD! PhD students are mortals too!

But apparently not capable of spelling simple words these days. And people say grade inflation doesn't exist!
I think students deserve better than to be taught by a lecturer who cannot spell simple and common words in the English language. I think toddlers deserve better than that from their kindergarten teachers, and the benchmark ought to be significantly higher for those who aspire to lecture at third level.

El Siglo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

But apparently not capable of spelling simple words these days. And people say grade inflation doesn't exist!
I think students deserve better than to be taught by a lecturer who cannot spell simple and common words in the English language. I think toddlers deserve better than that from their kindergarten teachers, and the benchmark ought to be significantly higher for those who aspire to lecture at third level.

Jesus what's the problem? It's a thread on boards, not a journal article being submitted to Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta for peer review. I know lecturers who can barely write, let alone spell. If the op was using say 'text-speak', I'd seriously question his/her motives. The op made what, three mistakes and you're lambasting their academic abilities? Is this not why Microsoft Word has "Spell Check"? Seriously, if you want to troll go into AH and do it, if you've a valuable contribution to make to the discussion besides denigrating the op, then get on with it.
Now, can we get back on topic or do we all need to pass a spelling test?:rolleyes:

Cavehill Red

So you don't think it's a problem that someone aspiring to be a university lecturer cannot spell 'education' and isn't aware that doctoral degrees are research-based? This in a nutshell is why we'll never have a knowledge economy.
My advice to the OP is to think long and hard whether a six or seven year commitment including the expense of fees is worth it just because they want to 'get into' lecturing. It seems to me they don't really know much about what they're aspiring towards, and have not remotely considered the effort involved or what it entails.

El Siglo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

So you don't think it's a problem that someone aspiring to be a university lecturer cannot spell 'education' and isn't aware that doctoral degrees are research-based? This in a nutshell is why we'll never have a knowledge economy.

So you're basing this supposition on a single post? Right, that isn't horribly short-sighted or generalising in the slightest...:rolleyes: What would you say if it were to transpire that the op has dyslexia and made those spelling mistakes as a result? Would you be as quick to apologise as you are to criticise and demean?

My advice to the OP is to think long and hard whether a six or seven year commitment including the expense of fees is worth it just because they want to 'get into' lecturing. It seems to me they don't really know much about what they're aspiring towards, and have not remotely considered the effort involved or what it entails.

Isn't it not a three or four year commitment? Even here it's three to four years? And it is for the one I'm starting in September anyway. Usually the fees are waived or are covered by the grant one needs to secure in the first place.
To be honest, the op is just trying to find out information on what is involved, they're starting from the 'ground up' so to speak (do you remember that place?).
So, as my dear old mother might say; "if you've got nothing nice to say about somebody, say nothing at all".:D

Static M.e.

This thread is suppose to help the OP, stop going off topic.

I've seen enough lectures who couldn't teach for **** but could spell just fine.

Either way, who cares.


jennypeny, some friends have just finished their PhD and it was very tough for them. Completely different disciplines Science and History but the work load seems to be the same.

I just finished a part time Masters and found it very tough as well. What I didn't realize when I started was that you lose all your time, I studied all week, class all weekend and then exams every holiday. To try and do a PhD like that would take an enormous amount of discipline.

I'm not sure if you need a PhD to start lecturing, I know some of our lectures were starting PhD while they taught us.. perhaps with your experience you could get lucky

Dr Strange

El Siglo wrote: »

... Isn't it not a three or four year commitment? Even here it's three to four years?

Normally, maybe, yes, but the OP was asking about a part-time/night-time PhD option.

Also, even a 3-4 year full-time PhD can take 5-6 years to complete depending on research direction, unforseen problems at uni/private life etc.

In this case though the OP was asking for a part-time PhD.

Cavehill Red

El Siglo wrote: »

So you're basing this supposition on a single post? Right, that isn't horribly short-sighted or generalising in the slightest...:rolleyes: What would you say if it were to transpire that the op has dyslexia and made those spelling mistakes as a result? Would you be as quick to apologise as you are to criticise and demean?

Nope, I'd be all the more insistent that they rethink their chosen career path.

El Siglo wrote: »

Isn't it not a three or four year commitment?

Not part-time or at night, it's not. It does pay to read the thread before answering. The OP specified they wished to study part-time.
In the context of yesterday's 1 billion euro cut in Higher Education expenditure, and the fact that many existing lecturers are tenured (and effectively unsackable), meaning that the lower rungs are already heavily oversubscribed with younger lecturers who already possess PhDs, I think it's fair comment to suggest that the OP rethink their plans.

Rosita

Cavehill Red wrote: »

So you don't think it's a problem that someone aspiring to be a university lecturer cannot spell 'education' and isn't aware that doctoral degrees are research-based? This in a nutshell is why we'll never have a knowledge economy.

The incorrect spelling of 'education' might have something to do with the fact that the 'i' and 'u' keys are side by side making it relatively easy to mistype.

By whether it's a typo or a genuine bad spelling I doubt it's such an influential matter that we can conclude that the nation will never have a knowledge economy simply on that basis.

Rosita

Can somebody explain consisely what is the practical difference between a full-time and part-time PhD?

I would have imagined that there is difference in the time-limit allowed for completion but some people I know doing them seem to have open-ended deadlines if that's not a contradition.

Perhaps the 'deadline' is just the minimum time time allowed? If so what are they?

Does a full-time PhD student have to make commitments to college such as tutoring etc.?

No doubt there are other differences that don't occur to me.

Roro4Brit

Rosita wrote: »

Can somebody explain consisely what is the practical difference between a full-time and part-time PhD?

I would have imagined that there is difference in the time-limit allowed for completion but some people I know doing them seem to have open-ended deadlines if that's not a contradition.

Perhaps the 'deadline' is just the minimum time time allowed? If so what are they?

Does a full-time PhD student have to make commitments to college such as tutoring etc.?

No doubt there are other differences that don't occur to me.

Afaik there is no difference other than duration. I'd like to think that when it came to viva whether it was pt or ft would not even be considered, after all you don't become Dr. Smith (full time) - your phd is your phd. The calibre of the research, it's contribution and publications are more important than how long it took to complete.

Generally a full time phd will require a min of 3 years before submissions would be allowed part time will be 4.5-5 years, in reality I'd imagine it takes much longer for pt students. I've heard of a phd that took 9 years - can you imagine that. The data must have been collected over and over to keep it relevant...yikes!

Din Taylor

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Nope, I'd be all the more insistent that they rethink their chosen career path.

So you'd be insistent of discriminating against someone with an impaired ability?
As soon as I read the OP I knew someone would take this ridiculous line. Boards can be so predictable some times.:(

For info - I have a close friend with dyslexia who completed a PhD and became a director of a large financial institution befre the age of 30. I also know an internationally renowned professor who consistently makes typing errors in his emails to me.

Rosita

Din Taylor wrote: »

For info - I have a close friend with dyslexia who completed a PhD and became a director of a large financial institution befre the age of 30. I also know an internationally renowned professor who consistently makes typing errors in his emails to me.

Similarly I know a lady with severe dyslexia who failed English in her Leaving Cert and now has a PhD and is now head of a school.

I think our 'critic' here is falling into the old trap of confusing spelling ability with intelligence.

ulysses32

Hi OP,

You can do a PhD part-time. It may take anywhere form four years plus to complete.

You should go to the school you are considering and make an appointment with the professor. They will answer all of your questions.

A structured/ taught PhD does mean that you have to pass modules to progress from year to year but it does not mean that your PhD is of a lesser standard.

PhD standard is PhD standard.It is original and publishable research.

Seamu$

jennypeny wrote: »

Hi All,

I have never thought about doing a PHd but I am interested in getting into lecturing and have been told that In order to stand a chance at getting a position I will need to hold one.

I'm not sure the advice you have been given is necessarily correct, you may very well stand a good chance of getting a lecturing post without a PhD, particularly in the area of Accounting & Finance where you have a Professional qualification already. Perhaps a Master Degree might benefit you in terms of enhancing your credentials to teach, but that may not be necessary either.

Look up the colleges or universities you are interesting in lecturing at and see what qualifications the existing academic staff have. I've just looked up the university I went to and 13 of the 19 staff listing do not appear to hold doctorates!! It is not a necessity, it would appear.

I would say to start applying for positions as they arise and try to get on the panel for such positions. If you get turned down because of lack of academic qualifications then you know you'll have to do something about it!

Seamu$

Interesting thread on the matter http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054945766

Cavehill Red

Din Taylor wrote: »

So you'd be insistent of discriminating against someone with an impaired ability?

I wouldn't support a lad in a wheelchair's attempts to become a PE teacher either, or a deaf person's aspirations to become a sound engineer. Some disabilities are a bar to certain careers. That's life. No one ever said it was fair.

Din Taylor wrote: »

For info - I have a close friend with dyslexia who completed a PhD and became a director of a large financial institution befre the age of 30.

Congratulations to them. That's a great achievement.

Din Taylor wrote: »

I also know an internationally renowned professor who consistently makes typing errors in his emails to me.

That's much more concerning. Although it might be less important if this professor is primarily engaged in research rather than teaching students.
It brings me back to my original point, which is that the ability to spell basic words correctly and consistently ought to be a fundamental requirement to educate.
In the customer-driven environment that universities have become, students who are spending time, effort and significant money deserve to get in return the best education possible.
While some laxity may be possible where exceptional non-native speakers are involved in lecturing, I think the very least that students deserve is to have lecturers who are utterly fluent and capable in the English language, and that goes for all disciplines.
This article highlights the contrast between Australia, where standards of grammar and spelling have lapsed among educators, and Singapore, where they have not. It's interesting to note that Australia is now rolling back towards a much more rigorous process of ensuring that teachers at secondary and tertiary level are fastidious in their language.
It's also worth noting that Singapore, which our government trumpets as the model for the knowledge economy we hope to emulate, is insistent on both educators and students being exact in their use of language. It's no surprise to find that Singapore students then go on to outperform native students when studying in places like Britain.

Cavehill Red

Rosita wrote: »

Similarly I know a lady with severe dyslexia who failed English in her Leaving Cert and now has a PhD and is now head of a school.

I hope she's not teaching English to children.
Anecdotal evidence is no evidence.

Rosita wrote: »

I think our 'critic' here is falling into the old trap of confusing spelling ability with intelligence.

There is no correlation, either positive or negative (both have been alleged in the past) between spelling and intelligence.
My point remains simply that people with poor spelling may well be geniuses, but lack a fundamental capability required to work as educators.

hairybro

Hi jennypeny,

If you are only considering a PhD to get into lecturing then I would advise you to tread carefully and think things through. The PhD, whether taken fulltime or part-time, is an absolute bear! Do you *need* a PhD to get a lecturing position? Well, no, not necessarily (as Seamu$ has noted). However, in my experience, things are heading that way and there is currently a bit of a "PhD fetish" at third level in that many existing non-PhD lecturers (in various disciplines) are now pursuing doctorates, and new staff are increasingly expected to have (or be close to completing) one. A PhD would therefore certainly help your position BUT it is a huge amount of work and will not guarantee you a lecturing position by any means (I know of PhD graduates who are struggling to get more than an odd part-time teaching/tutorial hour here and there).

Furthermore, lecturing may not even be your thing. What if, frankly, you don't like it when you try it? It is a huge risk to subject yourself to "the road to Hell" that is the doctoral process only to find that academia is not for you afterall. My feeling is that you should try to get a few hours lecturing (e.g. part-time) to see whether or not you like it. If you do then you can look to improve your qualifications as necessary to land a full-time position in the future. Now, even part-time hours can be hard to come by nowadays, but you can certainly try to pick some up.

You may or may not be aware of it, but IIRC the ACCA qualification is recognised on the National Qualifications Framework at Level 9, which is the same level as a Masters degree. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that it's equivalent to a Masters degree as e.g. Postgraduate Diplomas and Certificates are also at Level 9, but the fact that you hold a Level 9 professional qualification will certainly stand to you when applying for lecturing positions.

One other suggestion for you might be to consider doing a DBA instead of a PhD. This professional doctorate in business administration would be somewhat more practically-oriented than the more theoretical and academic PhD. Nevertheless, it would be well-suited to both industry and academia (especially in an applied business discipline such as accountancy IMO) so should serve you well even if you don't end up lecturing. The DBA is a structured programme, involving both coursework and research elements, and is often offered in executive part-time mode so you could pursue it while working full-time. It's still a doctorate though, and at the same level (i.e. Level 10) as a PhD. Not sure about the entry requirements for a DBA, but it may be worth checking out.

Anyway, enough of my waffle, and the best of luck to you.

hairybro (PhD)

Tom Dunne

Seamu$ wrote: »

Interesting thread on the matter http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054945766

I have pretty much summed up my experiences in the above thread.

A couple of things:

• you need to be clear whether you are talking about lecturing at an IT, or lecturing at a university
• this will then dictate whether or not you need a PhD. I am lecturing six years now and I don't have a PhD. However, I have only and ever lectured in ITs.
• As others have pointed out, lecturing may not be your thing. July/August is when part-time lecturing positions are advertised. This is an ideal opportunity to see if it suits you

And finally, I got into lecturing after I spent a few years working as a technical trainer. Perhaps this is something you could consider doing initially.

Din Taylor

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I wouldn't support a lad in a wheelchair's attempts to become a PE teacher either, or a deaf person's aspirations to become a sound engineer. Some disabilities are a bar to certain careers. That's life. No one ever said it was fair.

I would agree with you to an extent. In some jobs you need to discriminate for example a priest needs to be a Catholic. Not sure your examples are very good. The Miami Dolphins had a successful kicking coach who was in a wheelchair all of his life and wasn't Beethoven deaf? Certainly being dyslexic has no bearings at all on a lecturing career with sufficient report.

Glad that dscriminating against people with a disability with regards is illegal in te UK. I hope it is the same back home.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That's much more concerning. Although it might be less important if this professor is primarily engaged in research rather than teaching students.
It brings me back to my original point, which is that the ability to spell basic words correctly and consistently ought to be a fundamental requirement to educate.
In the customer-driven environment that universities have become, students who are spending time, effort and significant money deserve to get in return the best education possible.
While some laxity may be possible where exceptional non-native speakers are involved in lecturing, I think the very least that students deserve is to have lecturers who are utterly fluent and capable in the English language, and that goes for all disciplines.

You clearly have no idea of the controls used in lecturing the course. Course notes are usually passed down and any changes are checked by at least one colleague. Examinations will be checked by a colleague before being passed onto an external examiner.

Btw the professor isn't a native English speaker. He splits his time between research and teaching about 65/35. I think the many former students he has in excellent jobs are glad that he taught them.

You're either a troll or are completely ignorant of the facts.

Cavehill Red

Din Taylor wrote: »

I would agree with you to an extent. In some jobs you need to discriminate for example a priest needs to be a Catholic. Not sure your examples are very good. The Miami Dolphins had a successful kicking coach who was in a wheelchair all of his life and wasn't Beethoven deaf? Certainly being dyslexic has no bearings at all on a lecturing career with sufficient report.

No bearings at all? What twaddle. Beethoven wasn't a sound engineer, by the way, and Blevins wasn't a PE teacher. He was also sacked by the Dolphins and now works as an inspirational speaker, I believe.

Din Taylor wrote: »

Glad that dscriminating against people with a disability with regards is illegal in te UK. I hope it is the same back home.

It is here too. But that still doesn't mean that a basic inability to spell is not a fundamental impediment to becoming an educator.

Din Taylor wrote: »

You clearly have no idea of the controls used in lecturing the course. Course notes are usually passed down and any changes are checked by at least one colleague. Examinations will be checked by a colleague before being passed onto an external examiner.

And notes on a blackboard, or a whiteboard? Or new courses designed by a new lecturer, requiring course notes from scratch? And exams are only cursorily examined by a second reader, and not all are passed on to an extern, especially not at undergrad level.

Din Taylor wrote: »

You're either a troll or are completely ignorant of the facts.

Or thirdly, I have a doctorate myself, and my other half works as a lecturer, and I would want my child to be educated by people who are fully proficient in the English language.

southsiderosie

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That's much more concerning. Although it might be less important if this professor is primarily engaged in research rather than teaching students.
It brings me back to my original point, which is that the ability to spell basic words correctly and consistently ought to be a fundamental requirement to educate.
In the customer-driven environment that universities have become, students who are spending time, effort and significant money deserve to get in return the best education possible.
While some laxity may be possible where exceptional non-native speakers are involved in lecturing, I think the very least that students deserve is to have lecturers who are utterly fluent and capable in the English language, and that goes for all disciplines.
This article highlights the contrast between Australia, where standards of grammar and spelling have lapsed among educators, and Singapore, where they have not. It's interesting to note that Australia is now rolling back towards a much more rigorous process of ensuring that teachers at secondary and tertiary level are fastidious in their language.
It's also worth noting that Singapore, which our government trumpets as the model for the knowledge economy we hope to emulate, is insistent on both educators and students being exact in their use of language. It's no surprise to find that Singapore students then go on to outperform native students when studying in places like Britain.

Sorry, I still think you are being ridiculous. Certainly people should be able to speak in a grammatically correct way, and their academic writing should be sound, but judging people on email (or a message board) is just petty.

My advisor regularly sends emails that are all in lower case with many spelling errors (which have only gotten worse since he got an iPhone). He also has a PhD from Harvard, has won a MacArthur Genius Grant, and has multiple tenured appointments. His academic writing style is fluid and elegant, and his work is heavily cited across multiple fields. Frankly if there is something that people need to be concerned about with writing and academics, it should be the fact that so many academics write books and articles that are grammatically correct but otherwise utterly incomprehensible.

OP, if you want to go into academia, be prepared to deal with inane nitpicking and petty bickering over irrelevant topics. (hm, maybe that's why I'm on boards so much!)

Rosita

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Anecdotal evidence is no evidence.

Lighten up will you for God's sake. It's not the central criminal court and it's not like I claimed she walked on the moon. Fortunately I won't lose sleep if I don't reach the dizzying heights of your burden of proof. :rolleyes:

Rosita

southsiderosie wrote: »

S

Frankly if there is something that people need to be concerned about with writing and academics, it should be the fact that so many academics write books and articles that are grammatically correct but otherwise utterly incomprehensible.

Well put - and they are usually massively over-written with countless redundant words.

Cavehill Red

We can all make up 'friends' who despite being paraplegic, blind and suffering brain lesions went on to double firsts at Cambridge, doctorates at Harvard and conquered Everest without oxygen.
But it adds nothing to the discussion. This really isn't a difficult point and I'm hard pushed to comprehend people's vehemence in defending sub-standard educators:
Lecturers who are error-free in the English language, all things being equal, are better educators than those whose capacity in the language is hampered by poor spelling and grammar.
This has been demonstrated in Singapore and now in Australia too. Those who think that expecting such basic capabilities in a third-level educator is somehow being 'petty' or 'nitpicking' are simply condoning shoddy educational standards and accepting the ever-slipping quality of third-level education in Ireland.

Cavehill Red

Rosita wrote: »

Well put - and they are usually massively over-written with countless redundant words.

Irony?
While it's true many academic texts are impenetrable to the lay reader, the good ones are not.
The pressure to publish at all costs, not to mention the nature of the academic publishing sector (they'll run anything so long as someone subsidises it), does lead to relatively poor research appearing in print all too often.

Red Alert

Guys can we stay on topic - take any teaching and lecturing ability discussion over to the Teaching and Lecturing forum.

Rosita

Cavehill Red wrote: »

We can all make up 'friends' who despite being paraplegic, blind and suffering brain lesions went on to double firsts at Cambridge, doctorates at Harvard and conquered Everest without oxygen.
But it adds nothing to the discussion.

And yarns about having doctorates and other halves who are allegedly lecturers adds exactly what to the discussion?

Cavehill Red

It was a factual response to an unfounded accusation of trolling and ignorance.

Rosita

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Irony?
While it's true many academic texts are impenetrable to the lay reader, the good ones are not.

Irony?

If you are under the illusion that 'countless' and 'redundant' mean the same thing then you are sadly lacking in your own knowledge of the English language.

Countless = Too numerous to count.

Redundant = Unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas.

I take it this anecdotal doctorate of yours is not in English.

Rosita

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It was a factual response to an unfounded accusation of trolling and ignorance.

It was not a factual response. It was an anecdotal reponse. You adduced no evidence whatsoever to back up the claim.

You can't have one burden of proof for others and a different one for yourself.

Cavehill Red

Rosita wrote: »

Irony?

If you are under the illusion that 'countless' and 'redundant' mean the same thing then you are sadly lacking in your own knowledge of the English language.

Countless = Too numerous to count.

Redundant = Unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas.

I take it this anecdotal doctorate of yours is not in English.

You take it wrongly, twice over.
I was suggesting that having stated that such books were 'massively overwritten', it was perhaps unnecessary to add the phrase 'countless redundant words'. One might even consider that phrase itself to consist of redundant words, which would be ironic in the context.
And my doctorate is in English Literature.
/off-topic

Rosita

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You take it wrongly, twice over.
I was suggesting that having stated that such books were 'massively overwritten', it was perhaps unnecessary to add the phrase 'countless redundant words'. One might even consider that phrase itself to consist of redundant words, which would be ironic in the context.
And my doctorate is in English Literature.
/off-topic

Perhaps unnecessary.............but then again perhaps not. Hardly a mortal offence against the philosophy of the plain English campaign. More a piece of silly point-scoring on your part I would say.

Incidentally, I don't believe a word about this claimed doctorate.

Cavehill Red

We're well off-topic, so I've responded to you by PM.

Din Taylor

Cavehill let's keep this on topic but your views on dyslexia are at best totally tasteless and at worst illegal to put into practice. They're certainly ill-informed (you back up you claims with no scientific evidence). My comments about lecturing controls come from my own experince lecturing for a couple of years in the UK. Trust me, the lecturer - student relationship is moving towards service provider - customer relationship, in the UK at least. Think I'll leave it at that.:)

PS I've noticed some typos in my earlier posts:o Hope that didn't cause you too much distress. Sorry but I really can't be bothered checking my forum posts before posting them.;)

Now to answer the OP:

jennypeny wrote: »

Hi All,

I have never thought about doing a PHd but I am interested in getting into lecturing and have been told that In order to stand a chance at getting a position I will need to hold one.

However I am not sure of a few things;

1- The difference between a thought / research PHd and which one would be better.
2- What I should actualy do the PHd in. I have a degree in Business and am ACCA qualified so would I have to do the PHd in finance or Business? Or do I choose to do it in Edication?
3- Is it possible to do a part time / Night PHd. I am working full time and would not be in a financial position to leave my job unless I had secured another one.

If anyone might point me in the direction I need or help with I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks:)

1. A PhD is by research only. It will be awarded after an oral examination, called a viva voce, based on a written thesis about your research. As some other posters mentioned you can earn other types of doctorates that have taught elements. Futhermore if you decide to do a PhD in North America you'll need to do some written and oral exams, called Quals, after about two years before you can go to the research part of the PhD.
2. You'll need to find what you're good at yourself. You could even contact various potential supervisors to give you a brief synopsis of your research. When I was applying for my PhD my future advisor was very helpful and this helped me make my decision.
3. Yes. Specifically, a PhD is a PhD. A good "rule of thumb" is that doing it part-time would take twice as long as doing it full-time. Some universities or research councils may also offer funding to do the PhD. This will typically cover all fees, a small stipend and a small fund in order to attend various coferences.

Good luck with your endeavours.:)

Cavehill Red

Din Taylor wrote: »

Cavehill let's keep this on topic but your views on dyslexia are at best totally tasteless and at worst illegal to put into practice. They're certainly ill-informed (you back up you claims with no scientific evidence). My comments about lecturing controls come from my own experince lecturing for a couple of years in the UK. Trust me, the lecturer - student relationship is moving towards service provider - customer relationship, in the UK at least. Think I'll leave it at that.:)

I didn't offer views on dyslexia. It was a McGuffin brought into discussion by another poster. I offered views on the suitability of someone lacking basic spelling or grammar skills to be a third-level educator.
I offered the evidence from both Australia and Singapore in support of that, though it ought to be self-evident.
Re: lecturing controls, it wouldn't surprise me that standards in Ireland are lacking compared even to those in Britain, if indeed those standards you described are rigorously applied in all circumstances at undergrad level, which I doubt.
I was the first to raise the issue of student as customer. This WILL have a major effect on tertiary education going forward, and that effect will include a raising of the bar when it comes to teaching standards, spelling included.
The Singapore model is the one both Britain and Ireland have overtly stated they wish to emulate.

gaeilgebeo

Rosita wrote: »

Irony?

If you are under the illusion that 'countless' and 'redundant' mean the same thing then you are sadly lacking in your own knowledge of the English language.

Countless = Too numerous to count.

Redundant = Unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas.

I take it this anecdotal doctorate of yours is not in English.

#

Rosita has her trusted dictionary out again.:D
Oh I'd say they'll just love to see you coming into any staffroom.

jennypeny

Well thanks to everyone who offered me some useful advice although slightly overshadowed by the 3 pages of nonsense that followed.

I must take note in future that when I am typing on an informal message board I should ensure my punctuation and typing are perfect for fear of another blast at my mental capabilities.

livinginkorea

jennypeny wrote: »

Well thanks to everyone who offered me some useful advice although slightly overshadowed by the 3 pages of nonsense that followed.

.

+1

I was very interested in this thread but now very disappointed after reading it.

As a TESOL lecturer in Korea, I do warn teachers about their spelling in marked teaching practices, assignment papers and lesson plans but never on emails, message boards or classroom activities. I also mark MA module papers for an English university and was told not to penalize students for spelling mistakes unless there is a breakdown in communication, i.e. the sentence structure is incomprehensible.

On messages boards, who cares? Is anyone taking off points for errors