Full-time vs Part-time PhD

Powerhouse

Am thinking of applying of a PhD which would be closely related to a topic I did for a Master's thesis so I think I'd have a bit of an advantage in terms of knowledge of sources etc.

Looking at the University website it mentions a full-time PhD as being 3-4 years and a part-time as maybe 4-6. I have asked this question many times from many people (unfortunately when I rang the university all I was asked was what I was interested in doing it in and telling me to contact a potential supervisor etc. and I was still left no wiser on the question I asked) and never got a satisfactory answer so I'll try again!

What is the practical difference between a full-time and part-time PhD apart from fees being frontloaded more in the case of the full-time? I'm wondering if there is any advantage/disadvantage to full-time vs part-time or why there is a differentiation at all?

Squeeonline

I've never heard of anyone doing a part time PhD though I'm aware they exist. I think it depends on your field. Might work well for an artsy thing where there's no lab work involved, but I couldn't imagine being able to do a science PhD part time if there was wet lab work involved.

Any PhD funding that I've seen only covers full time so unless you're self funding you might find it very difficult to get funding for a part time.

Powerhouse

Squeeonline wrote: »

I've never heard of anyone doing a part time PhD though I'm aware they exist. I think it depends on your field. Might work well for an artsy thing where there's no lab work involved, but I couldn't imagine being able to do a science PhD part time if there was wet lab work involved.

Any PhD funding that I've seen only covers full time so unless you're self funding you might find it very difficult to get funding for a part time.

The funding element is irrelevant as I am working off the assumption that I will be self-funding. It's just the question of what the difference is between the two that is the issue.

Tom Dunne

Powerhouse wrote: »

The funding element is irrelevant as I am working off the assumption that I will be self-funding. It's just the question of what the difference is between the two that is the issue.

As somebody doing one part-time, the only difference I can see is time.

mistress_gi

In my field it is really frowned upon to have PhD students doing a PhD more than 4 years, this is because the University is expected to be good enough to graduate students within that time. Having said that I had my own funding and it took me 6 years to finish (on the 5th and 6th year I had to have formal permission from the head of department though), I think it depends on the University and field. I would suggest you get in touch with the graduate department of your chosen university and get them to clarify!

Powerhouse

mistress_gi wrote: »

In my field it is really frowned upon to have PhD students doing a PhD more than 4 years, this is because the University is expected to be good enough to graduate students within that time. Having said that I had my own funding and it took me 6 years to finish (on the 5th and 6th year I had to have formal permission from the head of department though), I think it depends on the University and field. I would suggest you get in touch with the graduate department of your chosen university and get them to clarify!

Clearly in the case of a part-time PhD there is provision for someone to go beyond four years so that could hardly be frowned upon if it was provided for initially. And irrespective of the supposed quality of the university they cannot invent time so a person who is working can hardly realistically complete research in the same time as someone who is essentially a full-time student. It might be the case that that's (the time element) the only difference apart from the possibility of it being reflected in fees.

I'm just wondering why anyone would register as a full-time student and put themselves under more pressure time-wise if it amounts to the same thing in the heel of the hunt. Or is there a more significant difference?

mistress_gi

Well, another issue would be fees, I would inquire about that as well.

El Siglo

Powerhouse wrote: »

What is the practical difference between a full-time and part-time PhD apart from fees being frontloaded more in the case of the full-time? I'm wondering if there is any advantage/disadvantage to full-time vs part-time or why there is a differentiation at all?

OP, the only major difference is the length of time. I'm in Queen's and it's officially three years full-time, six years part-time. Effectively, the main research milestones (i.e. transferring from the MPhil/MLitt register onto the PhD register) are usually later on in the part-time course but are commensurate with the work carried with regard to the full-time (e.g. the transfer in Queen's has to be within the first year, usually the first nine months, whereas the part-time students it'll be eighteen months into the project). Effectively, there are no major differences but it's somewhat tricky if for example you're doing a heavy lab work based PhD (which is why those kinds of projects are generally advertised as being full-time). Fees in Queen's would be just under half that of the full-time (i.e. £1,914 as opposed to £3,828), but this is a university specific issue but if you're funded then the fees should in technically be covered.

Powerhouse

El Siglo wrote: »

OP, the only major difference is the length of time. I'm in Queen's and it's officially three years full-time, six years part-time. Effectively, the main research milestones (i.e. transferring from the MPhil/MLitt register onto the PhD register) are usually later on in the part-time course but are commensurate with the work carried with regard to the full-time (e.g. the transfer in Queen's has to be within the first year, usually the first nine months, whereas the part-time students it'll be eighteen months into the project). Effectively, there are no major differences but it's somewhat tricky if for example you're doing a heavy lab work based PhD (which is why those kinds of projects are generally advertised as being full-time). Fees in Queen's would be just under half that of the full-time (i.e. £1,914 as opposed to £3,828), but this is a university specific issue but if you're funded then the fees should in technically be covered.

Thanks, that makes sense and squares with other comments.

In relation to fees I presume they amount to the same thing in the end whether you are full-time or part-time? What happens if someone who has signed up for six years has completed in, say, four years - maybe circumstances change or whatever?

El Siglo

Powerhouse wrote: »

Thanks, that makes sense and squares with other comments.

In relation to fees I presume they amount to the same thing in the end whether you are full-time or part-time?

Yeh, they're identical (i.e. 6 * 1,914 = 11,484; 3 * 3,828 = 11,484). I hadn't checked in my previous post.

What happens if someone who has signed up for six years has completed in, say, four years - maybe circumstances change or whatever?

Yeh, you complete early, you complete early. However, this is a matter up to you, your supervisor, and the school management board (i.e. a board made up of academics in your department who say yay/nay to how you progress, at least that's what happens in Belfast). I would say though wait till your on the actual course and seeing how it goes before jumping the gun. I know people who completed early (two people in something like 2-2.5 years) but this is certainly the exception that proves the rule.

tomboylady

I'm currently working on one part-time. One thing I would check is whether or not you can submit your thesis earlier if you finish. I'm hoping to finish mine before the 6-year mark and my university will allow me to submit my thesis whenever I'm done and, if I pass, I'll be able to graduate in the next round of graduations after that. I know that some institutions are pretty strict and won't allow you to submit your thesis until your six years have passed even if you finish before then.

Powerhouse

tomboylady wrote: »

I'm currently working on one part-time. One thing I would check is whether or not you can submit your thesis earlier if you finish. I'm hoping to finish mine before the 6-year mark and my university will allow me to submit my thesis whenever I'm done and, if I pass, I'll be able to graduate in the next round of graduations after that. I know that some institutions are pretty strict and won't allow you to submit your thesis until your six years have passed even if you finish before then.

Thanks for that. I suppose deep down that's the thing that would concern me about the full-time vs part-time distinction. I'd hate to have it done in three-four years (which I really would hope to and be aiming for - the prospect of not doing so would nearly be a showstopper for me at the outset) and not be able to submit until much later. So as you say it's one to check on.

bren2001

Maybe I'm being a bit unfair to the OP but all I am reading is that they want to do their PhD over the normal 3-4 years but want to pay less so would go part time. If you are in the building 9-5 Monday - Friday you will be asked to switch onto the full time course pretty quickly.

Where I am, full time PhD students get preference on lab times, money to attend conferences, obtaining software licenses etc. They also only accept part time students under certain conditions i.e. doing the PhD with a company or, if self funding, to allow the researcher to get a part time job.

Powerhouse

bren2001 wrote: »

Maybe I'm being a bit unfair to the OP but all I am reading is that they want to do their PhD over the normal 3-4 years but want to pay less so would go part time. If you are in the building 9-5 Monday - Friday you will be asked to switch onto the full time course pretty quickly.

Where I am, full time PhD students get preference on lab times, money to attend conferences, obtaining software licenses etc. They also only accept part time students under certain conditions i.e. doing the PhD with a company or, if self funding, to allow the researcher to get a part time job.

You could hardly be wronger.

I made a couple of references to fees. One - funding is irrelevant. If I wished to avoid fees I'd go look for funding and wait until that came through if it did at all.

Two - In relation to fees I presume they amount to the same thing in the end whether you are full-time or part-time? The assumption that they are the same for full-time or part-time is hardly that of someone trying for the cheaper option, rather an obvious enough question to ask when you are considering paying €20k odd of your own money over a few years as part of trying to assess what practical differences there are between full-time and part-time. Fees or avoidance of them is not the issue and is a strange inference to draw to be honest.

There is no question of me being 'on campus' all day hiding in the toilets in case they see me and force me to do stuff. If I was a full-time student I'd be doing it full-time, why not? Instead I work full-time and would be doing this in my spare time.

djpbarry

Powerhouse wrote: »

The assumption that they are the same for full-time or part-time is hardly that of someone trying for the cheaper option, rather an obvious enough question to ask when you are considering paying €20k odd of your own money over a few years as part of trying to assess what practical differences there are between full-time and part-time.

Can I ask the very obvious question of why you are accepting that you will be paying fees and will go without funding? Have you applied for funding?

Powerhouse

djpbarry wrote: »

Can I ask the very obvious question of why you are accepting that you will be paying fees and will go without funding? Have you applied for funding?

I am not necessarily accepting that I will be paying fees. I simply don't know enough about the process to make any assumptions about potential funding, and to be honest I have given funding very little thought. I would not even consider the possibility of a PhD right now if I could not fund it myself as funding, I imagine, is difficult to come by otherwise. Happily, as someone who is earning I would be able to fund it myself. Obviously if someone comes along to fund it that's grand but it's not a decisive factor for me. The answer to your second question is 'no'.

ImDave

I don't want to derail this thread for the OP at all, but as someone who is also about to embark on a part-time PhD and not thinking of or seeking funding, what other kind of costs should I be factoring in along side tuition fees?

Travel to/from campus isn't an issue as I am often in the same area with work as my supervisor is based. Travel and attendance at conferences and seminars is something that will cost a few bob I'm sure, but is there anything else that I am missing?

tomboylady

I have spent a small fortune on books and various other study aids since I started. Depends on your area of study really. I'm self-funding and definitely underestimated the cost of those types of things before I started. Conferences, seminars, and memberships of different academic groups can add up too obviously. I feel like those are the main expenses, aside from fees.

djpbarry

Powerhouse wrote: »

I am not necessarily accepting that I will be paying fees. I simply don't know enough about the process to make any assumptions about potential funding, and to be honest I have given funding very little thought.

ImDave wrote: »

I don't want to derail this thread for the OP at all, but as someone who is also about to embark on a part-time PhD and not thinking of or seeking funding, what other kind of costs should I be factoring in along side tuition fees?

I probably state this at least once a week on this forum, but I would have very serious reservations about embarking on a PhD without funding. Apart from the obvious costs that are incurred, you really have to question the value of the research you will be undertaking if nobody is prepared to fund it. And apart from anything else, you are going to be working as a researcher, making a contribution to humanity’s body of knowledge – you deserve to be compensated for that.

Powerhouse

djpbarry wrote: »

I probably state this at least once a week on this forum, but I would have very serious reservations about embarking on a PhD without funding. Apart from the obvious costs that are incurred, you really have to question the value of the research you will be undertaking if nobody is prepared to fund it. And apart from anything else, you are going to be working as a researcher, making a contribution to humanity’s body of knowledge – you deserve to be compensated for that.

I would have no such reservations. I am happy on a personal level about the value of the research. I don't need to have it funded for me to validate the work for me, and would hate to ultimately have my decision based purely on the vagaries of the funding process.

As for 'deserving' to be compensated...I'm not sure it works like that. What you subjectively think you deserve on the basis of your contribution to society and what can be objectively provided for are not necessarily the same thing. If it were otherwise Wayne Rooney would not earn more in week than a brain surgeon earns in a year.

But it is worth saying that I have no idea if someone is prepared to fund it or not. That remains to be seen. But, as I said earlier, it certainly will not be a decisive factor for me either way.

djpbarry

Powerhouse wrote: »

I would have no such reservations. I am happy on a personal level about the value of the research. I don't need to have it funded for me to validate the work for me, and would hate to ultimately have my decision based purely on the vagaries of the funding process.

If your reasons for doing a PhD are purely for your own personal satisfaction and you can afford to do that, then fair enough. But still, it’s not harm to enquire about the possibility of funding.

Powerhouse wrote: »

As for 'deserving' to be compensated...I'm not sure it works like that. What you subjectively think you deserve on the basis of your contribution to society and what can be objectively provided for are not necessarily the same thing.

True, but the reality is that pursuing a PhD involves a lot of sacrifice and very hard work and you will reach a point when altruism goes out the window as you wonder why the hell you’re doing so much for so very little reward! It’s human nature.

El Siglo

djpbarry wrote: »

If your reasons for doing a PhD are purely for your own personal satisfaction and you can afford to do that, then fair enough. But still, it’s not harm to enquire about the possibility of funding.
True, but the reality is that pursuing a PhD involves a lot of sacrifice and very hard work and you will reach a point when altruism goes out the window as you wonder why the hell you’re doing so much for so very little reward! It’s human nature.

I have to say OP, you won't find a better description of the PhD than what djpbarry has said here. I'd nearly go on further to state that with all of the enthusiasm, passion, and love one can have for a subject of research, it will become an absolute ball and chain on your life and it will break you as a person. I know in my own research, I had to give up a lot in order to get the job done, really it comes to a point where you literally stop giving a fuck and just say; 'I'm finishing this malignant cunt of a thesis' (at least that's what I did, might be different for others but I doubt it).

If you can fund it, fair play OP. However, there will be costs that cannot be accounted for and you're going to have to speak to people in your field, doing PhDs now. I'm in the physical sciences, so I had costs ranging from books to laboratory equipment and field work that went into the thousands of pounds scale. Funding and costs are easily your first and most important concern, next to getting the research done.

As the famous saying goes: "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

Powerhouse

djpbarry wrote: »

If your reasons for doing a PhD are purely for your own personal satisfaction and you can afford to do that, then fair enough. But still, it’s not harm to enquire about the possibility of funding.
True, but the reality is that pursuing a PhD involves a lot of sacrifice and very hard work and you will reach a point when altruism goes out the window as you wonder why the hell you’re doing so much for so very little reward! It’s human nature.

I'll certainly enquire alright.

As for the sacrifice and hard work, no doubt that's true. But I have done two Master's theses already - the most recent one ran to 45,000 words and involved overseas' research, was a major undertaking (as Master's theses go - not wishing to imply parity with a PhD) and a fair few moments of self-doubt. And I now have to reduce it by 15,000 words for publication - and it still won't be published until next year! - so I understand the 'lack of reward' argument.

The main argument for me really is the time and the impact on family. Have to make sure they are happy first.

Powerhouse

El Siglo wrote: »

If you can fund it, fair play OP. However, there will be costs that cannot be accounted for and you're going to have to speak to people in your field, doing PhDs now. I'm in the physical sciences, so I had costs ranging from books to laboratory equipment and field work that went into the thousands of pounds scale. Funding and costs are easily your first and most important concern, next to getting the research done.

As the famous saying goes: "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

In understand and value your view, although it's in the field of humanities and would mainly be archive-based research, so such costs should not be too bad hopefully. Still I accept the need to be realistic.

ImDave

djpbarry wrote: »

I probably state this at least once a week on this forum, but I would have very serious reservations about embarking on a PhD without funding. Apart from the obvious costs that are incurred, you really have to question the value of the research you will be undertaking if nobody is prepared to fund it. And apart from anything else, you are going to be working as a researcher, making a contribution to humanity’s body of knowledge – you deserve to be compensated for that.

Very valid points. I never really contemplated seeking funding due to having next to no cop on during my undergrad leading to a 2:2. I do have a 2:1 in a masters, but from what I have come across, lack of a 1.1 or 2.1 in an undergrad would make obtaining funding very difficult.

All this said, I only have my initial meeting with my prospective supervisor coming up this week, so I am sure they will raise any possibilities of funding then. Given the nature of my topic, my employer may also prove to be an avenue for funding if I can demonstrate the value of the research to them.

Powerhouse

ImDave wrote: »

I only have my initial meeting with my prospective supervisor coming up this week.

Just wondering what approach work you did ahead of this meeting. Did you send the prospective supervisor a fairly detailed proposal before they agreed to meet you or were they happy to meet and shoot the breeze in general terms about the possibilities?

ImDave

Powerhouse wrote: »

Just wondering what approach work you did ahead of this meeting. Did you send the prospective supervisor a fairly detailed proposal before they agreed to meet you or were they happy to meet and shoot the breeze in general terms about the possibilities?

Most of my research into a possible proposal to date has been just getting a sense for what is out there in the literature, and confirming there is a research gap for what I am intending to focus on. I feel like I am going in quite blind to this meeting, but that said it is more to bounce possible ideas for approaching the project, as the general research question is something I have already formed in my head. At the moment I basically had loads of sheets of paper covered in random questions and arrows, so I will have to get something clearer together.

I will let you know how I get on in this meeting in case it is of any use to you.

Powerhouse

ImDave wrote: »

I will let you know how I get on in this meeting in case it is of any use to you.

That'd be great thanks. Best of luck with it.

djpbarry

Powerhouse wrote: »

The main argument for me really is the time and the impact on family. Have to make sure they are happy first.

Juggling a full-time job, a family and a PhD? You sure you know what you're doing?!?

Powerhouse

djpbarry wrote: »

Juggling a full-time job, a family and a PhD? You sure you know what you're doing?!?

That's why I said that the main argument for me is impact on family and not funding. That will ultimately be the decisive factor. It is also worth stating that I'm not actually doing anything at the moment. This is purely exploratory. But I'm sure I would not be the first person to successfully juggle all of these. Conversely I know of someone with no such commitments who pulled out of a PhD after a year or so.

djpbarry

Powerhouse wrote: »

But I'm sure I would not be the first person to successfully juggle all of these.

Oh, I don't know - I think you might be.

Powerhouse wrote: »

Conversely I know of someone with no such commitments who pulled out of a PhD after a year or so.

Well sure, plenty of people realise pretty quickly that a PhD just isn't for them - there's no shame in admitting as much.

bren2001

Powerhouse wrote: »

That's why I said that the main argument for me is impact on family and not funding. That will ultimately be the decisive factor. It is also worth stating that I'm not actually doing anything at the moment. This is purely exploratory. But I'm sure I would not be the first person to successfully juggle all of these. Conversely I know of someone with no such commitments who pulled out of a PhD after a year or so.

I'm not having a go at you and apologise for trying to make you out as a cheapskate. However, I do question how much work you think a PhD requires. Keeping a full time job (as a teacher it looks like) and a family is time consuming. A PhD is not something you do in your "spare time". It is a huge commitment which will require work every day. You will come home from work and have to spend 3-4 hours on your research, your time off will become PhD work. Your holidays will end up going to conferences or meeting your supervisor. It will be a long six years. If you are a teacher, the long summer and midterm breaks will make it much easier of course.

All this will put a big strain on your family relationships aswell as your friends. You will end up having to work at weekends.

What is your motivation for doing it? Is it to get two letters before your name, personal achievement or a career move?

Powerhouse

djpbarry wrote: »

Well sure, plenty of people realise pretty quickly that a PhD just isn't for them - there's no shame in admitting as much.

Indeed. Shame doesn't come into it either way.

Powerhouse

bren2001 wrote: »

However, I do question how much work you think a PhD requires.

Much of what you wrote is either old-hat i.e. telling me that juggling a full-time job and having a family is a challenge is telling your Granny how to suck eggs. I have done this while studying for a part-time Primary degree, two Masters' degrees and a Post-Grad diploma in the past ten years. I know that better than most. I had one year in which I wasn't studying since 2003.

More of it is either irrelevant and/or has already been dealt with i.e. my mnotivation for enquiring about a PhD. But if I must expand I have done substantial research on a topic already (50k words which is being published) and am interested in expanding on that research. Doing so in an academic framework would, I think, keep the standard at the sort of level is has achieved already (where the college takes the initiative regarding publication). Obviously I could do it without peer review and at a lot less cost but it would have far less credibility as a finished product. I think it would be remiss of me not to at least enquire even at the risk of being avalanched by 'you can't possibly do it' comments.

However, to answer the main question above - I don't think I commented one way or the other on the level of work involved in a PhD. I came on here to ask the difference between a full-time one and a part-time one, no more no less. The question of the work involved will be judged and assessed in consultation with a supervisor familiar with the area of research rather than one who talks about PhDs in the abstract. The question of whether I am willing to undertake it is quite another matter. For example if, as you imply, it is likely take four hours a night every for six years then it won't happen. I'd do a mountain of alternative projects for a fraction of the cost in those man-hours. A conversation with a potential supervisor would enlighten me I think. At that stage I can take an informed decision. But I am a long long way from that right now.

djpbarry

Powerhouse wrote: »

I came on here to ask the difference between a full-time one and a part-time one, no more no less.

And you've been provided with plenty of useful advice from people who have either been through the process of obtaining a PhD or are currently in the midst of it. Just because this advice is tangential to the original question that you asked, doesn't mean it should be dismissed with glib responses. Apart from anything else, even if it is not particularly useful to you, it may be to someone else reading this thread who is considering undertaking a part-time PhD.

Powerhouse

djpbarry wrote: »

Just because this advice is tangential to the original question that you asked, doesn't mean it should be dismissed with glib responses.

With respect I have been a father/husband for 15+ years and studying/researching part-time while working full-time for ten years. I think I can be allowed a little latitude when it comes to responding to people who propose to advise me on work-life balance or how my 'family relationships' will pan out. In all fairness I am far more likely to have cogitated on that matter than most given that I have been in those circumstances to a fair extent (for example four nights a week four hours a night doing a part-time Primary degree) already - and have expressly stated that the potential impact on family (which obviously includes consideration of time) was the most significant factor for me. Can I not have some credit for actually saying that?

If the purpose of the thread is to desseminate information and help others then let that be done. If, in doing so, people wish to talk about their own experiencee and proffer advice on that basis then that makes sense, but surely it would help more if people said what their area of research was, what was involved time-wise and commitment-wise, whether they did it full-time or part-time than constantly probing at my motives, speculating about my circumstances, and constantly gainsaying everything that I am presumed to have said (but usually haven't)?

El Siglo

Powerhouse wrote: »

With respect I have been a father/husband for 15+ years and studying/researching part-time while working full-time for ten years. I think I can be allowed a little latitude when it comes to responding to people who propose to advise me on work-life balance or how my 'family relationships' will pan out. In all fairness I am far more likely to have cogitated on that matter than most given that I have been in those circumstances to a fair extent (for example four nights a week four hours a night doing a part-time Primary degree) already - and have expressly stated that the potential impact on family (which obviously includes consideration of time) was the most significant factor for me. Can I not have some credit for actually saying that?

This is all fair enough, not in a position to comment as like the other posters here I do not know your circumstances. However and in all sincerity, you've obviously had a lot of experience of working hard in academia and that's great.

I must say though, from reading some of the other posts, the people here are merely pointing out some potential pitfalls and this isn't any judgement of you, just that they are merely commenting on what is evidenced by the thread and employing their own experience (which does count). Attitude of any kind never serves anyone well no matter how much you believe to be in the right. It's not that they're saying you can or can't or anything, they're just pointing out some areas that might require you to give some consideration. By the way, such critiquing is very popular with supervisors and audience members at conferences, if you do pursue the PhD, expect it to happen.

If the purpose of the thread is to desseminate information and help others then let that be done. If, in doing so, people wish to talk about their own experiencee and proffer advice on that basis then that makes sense, but surely it would help more if people said what their area of research was, what was involved time-wise and commitment-wise, whether they did it full-time or part-time than constantly probing at my motives, speculating about my circumstances, and constantly gainsaying everything that I am presumed to have said (but usually haven't)?

Area of research:
I'm a geologist, I specialise in sedimentology, low temperature geochemistry and most importantly geostatistics/mathematical geology.

Time-wise:
Lots of time required. Don't expect to finish early. It's not that you can or can't, your research and approach to research has to mature. Also, there's usually a hell of a lot of things to be learned and digested which make for a better thesis. Time isn't a bad thing, taking your time is fine but don't go to the other extreme and take ten years. My point is that you need to develop a certain competency which only comes with research experience. I'm not saying you are not competent now, on the contrary you're very competent from what I've seen here. What I mean is in terms of the research you intend to pursue, you have to develop alongside it, how you engage it, how you challenge it, how you convey it etc... This is one of those slightly intangible things that you don't read about in a prospectus. In simple terms, what you write in first year of your PhD will be completely polar to what you write in third or fourth and that only comes with experience of the PhD.

Commitment-wise
A commitment that no normal person could ever understand. Commitment, like being able to work 36 hours straight and still not be finished. Commitment, like giving up every weekend for at least two years. Commitment, like giving up hobbies or personal interests. The commitment required is probably one of the most important things. A person can be half-smart (okay-ish) but if they're committed they'll finish. Commitment is the one thing that changes a PhD student the most and it's something that never goes away afterwards. Regardless of how many qualifications or time spent getting them or how ever hard they were to achieve, they are not the PhD. A PhD is a completely different beast to anything and no preceding qualification will prepare you for it. There's no such thing as an easy PhD, they're all hard. Unlike a undergrad or anything else, a PhD gets exponentially harder with time (not linearly). So the commitment increases substantially over time.

By the way, I'm full-time and the PhD has consumed my existence.

Again, don't take criticisms personally even if they appear to be in a personal nature. They're not personal (well I hope not) and academia is all about questioning everything.

I do wish you every success, I hope you do pursue the PhD.

Powerhouse

El Siglo wrote: »

This is all fair enough, not in a position to comment as like the other posters here I do not know your circumstances. However and in all sincerity, you've obviously had a lot of experience of working hard in academia and that's great.

I must say though, from reading some of the other posts, the people here are merely pointing out some potential pitfalls and this isn't any judgement of you, just that they are merely commenting on what is evidenced by the thread and employing their own experience (which does count). Attitude of any kind never serves anyone well no matter how much you believe to be in the right. It's not that they're saying you can or can't or anything, they're just pointing out some areas that might require you to give some consideration. By the way, such critiquing is very popular with supervisors and audience members at conferences, if you do pursue the PhD, expect it to happen.



Area of research:
I'm a geologist, I specialise in sedimentology, low temperature geochemistry and most importantly geostatistics/mathematical geology.

Time-wise:
Lots of time required. Don't expect to finish early. It's not that you can or can't, your research and approach to research has to mature. Also, there's usually a hell of a lot of things to be learned and digested which make for a better thesis. Time isn't a bad thing, taking your time is fine but don't go to the other extreme and take ten years. My point is that you need to develop a certain competency which only comes with research experience. I'm not saying you are not competent now, on the contrary you're very competent from what I've seen here. What I mean is in terms of the research you intend to pursue, you have to develop alongside it, how you engage it, how you challenge it, how you convey it etc... This is one of those slightly intangible things that you don't read about in a prospectus. In simple terms, what you write in first year of your PhD will be completely polar to what you write in third or fourth and that only comes with experience of the PhD.

Commitment-wise
A commitment that no normal person could ever understand. Commitment, like being able to work 36 hours straight and still not be finished. Commitment, like giving up every weekend for at least two years. Commitment, like giving up hobbies or personal interests. The commitment required is probably one of the most important things. A person can be half-smart (okay-ish) but if they're committed they'll finish. Commitment is the one thing that changes a PhD student the most and it's something that never goes away afterwards. Regardless of how many qualifications or time spent getting them or how ever hard they were to achieve, they are not the PhD. A PhD is a completely different beast to anything and no preceding qualification will prepare you for it. There's no such thing as an easy PhD, they're all hard. Unlike a undergrad or anything else, a PhD gets exponentially harder with time (not linearly). So the commitment increases substantially over time.

By the way, I'm full-time and the PhD has consumed my existence.

Again, don't take criticisms personally even if they appear to be in a personal nature. They're not personal (well I hope not) and academia is all about questioning everything.

I do wish you every success, I hope you do pursue the PhD.

Yes, thanks for that. I don't mean to show 'attitude' and apologies if I did - it's just that this is at such an exploratory stage. When I finished my Master's one of the lessons I took from it, funnily enough given this conversation, was that I would not do a PhD given the work involved in the Master's. I am just getting the itch again at the moment especially since my Master's topic is expandable. When I did my original Master's my supervisor suggested doing a PhD stating that I had essentially the first chapter done in my Master's thesis. I did a very successful Master's thesis last year but it still a long way off the knowledge base of a PhD, but if the research done gave me a leg up that would be an important starting point. But I would need to do a lot of general reading to more credible.

But an example of the things I have to consider is that if I were to undertake a PhD now it would likely clash with my daughter's Leaving Cert year and I really would like to be there for her at all times during that year as she's bright but not exactly a self-starter (not unlike myself at her age!). But I might like to talk to a potential supervisor to see if the work I have already done is a significant advantage to me, and what realistically would be involved. That will be a key factor. I'll probably at least have that conversation at some stage later in the year and see what transpires. Thanks for your comments anyway.

djpbarry

Powerhouse wrote: »

With respect I have been a father/husband for 15+ years and studying/researching part-time while working full-time for ten years. I think I can be allowed a little latitude when it comes to responding to people who propose to advise me on work-life balance or how my 'family relationships' will pan out. In all fairness I am far more likely to have cogitated on that matter than most given that I have been in those circumstances to a fair extent (for example four nights a week four hours a night doing a part-time Primary degree) already - and have expressly stated that the potential impact on family (which obviously includes consideration of time) was the most significant factor for me.

With respect, this is an anonymous internet forum – you have absolutely no idea what the circumstances of the various different posters on this thread are and they are under no obligation to reveal personal information if they do not wish to do so. As El Siglo has already said, nobody is stating categorically that, given your circumstances, a PhD is beyond you. What they are saying is embarking on a PhD is just about one of the biggest commitments you can make and there are times when it consumes you completely. Given that you’ve made two massive commitments already (getting married and having kids), you really need to be absolutely sure that this is what you want. Granted, you can always back out if you feel it’s not for you, but that may well incur a significant financial penalty, especially in the absence of funding.

Powerhouse

djpbarry wrote: »

With respect, this is an anonymous internet forum – you have absolutely no idea what the circumstances of the various different posters on this thread are and they are under no obligation to reveal personal information if they do not wish to do so.

Who said anyone was under an obligation to do anything?

Tom Dunne

Could I ask, Powerhouse, in what field are you considering the PhD?

Kathnora

Sorry, Powerhouse but I have to comment on your statement in Post 14 "You could hardly be wronger". I would kill (not literally!) a 6th class student for using such poor English!

djpbarry

Kathnora wrote: »

Sorry, Powerhouse but I have to comment on your statement in Post 14 "You could hardly be wronger". I would kill (not literally!) a 6th class student for using such poor English!

MOD: Well, this isn't a 6th class English exam, is it?

Powerhouse

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Could I ask, Powerhouse, in what field are you considering the PhD?

Of course - the field is History. I did a Master's thesis on the Irish Revolution in a particular aspect/region and if the PhD were to happen I'd be hoping to use that as a springboard to do a study of a larger aspect/region. By a springboard I mean that I would hope I have already identified the most significant/important sources/archives even if at a relatively superficial level and would at least have credible experience of using them even if, to be honest, much of the use of sources was so glancing as to be negligible certainly in the context of the immersion that would be required for broader research.

That, for what it's worth, would be the grasp for credibility I'd be making if approaching a potential supervisor. I'll probably make a decision one way or the other within the next six months. On balance I'd say I probably won't do it but we'll see. I would definitely like to do more research on the area but I can do that outside of a PhD situation too.

ZeroBarry

From what I understand, a majority of IoT's & Universities will get a Full Time PhD candidate to part take in what they refer to as 'Personal Development'. This might include e.g. teaching a few classes in a lecturing role and possibly tutoring undergrads in a learning support unit.
As far as I understand, 'Personal Development' activities are not expected of a part time student due to the fact they may have other responsibilities e.g. a full/part time job with irregular hours etc.

There may also be some differences in the number of journal papers required to be published between full/part time PhD candidates.
Full time may be required to have 2-3 journal papers published and a certain number of conferences attended whereas part time may only need to publish 1 journal paper and attend no conferences due to time restrains and other responsibilities.

This is based on my own experience with a graduate studies office and friends having looked into doing a PhD with me

Manco

OP, stumbled across this thread and I know that when I was applied for PhD funding last year there were History funding schemes targeted specifically for projects during the decade 1912-1923, because of the centenary of commemorations and all that. My topic discusses mid-twentieth century Ireland so it wasn't available to me but potential supervisors might know of similar schemes in the future, alongside other funding options. Your topic sounds fascinating anyway so best of luck in whatever it is you decide to do, it sounds like you've worked hard.

LutherBlissett

Apologies for dredging up a thread like this, but I was wondering - are there any or many sources for funding a part time PhD? Or do those who wish to pursue a PhD part time have to compete with full timers for funding (if part timers are not precluded from doing so)?

BabyBirch

LutherBlissett wrote: »

Apologies for dredging up a thread like this, but I was wondering - are there any or many sources for funding a part time PhD? Or do those who wish to pursue a PhD part time have to compete with full timers for funding (if part timers are not precluded from doing so)?

I was going to ask the same question, I had been looking at IRC funding but unfortunately part time scholars are excluded.

Hellywelly

BabyBirch wrote: »

I was going to ask the same question, I had been looking at IRC funding but unfortunately part time scholars are excluded.

Hi
None of the main funders (Research Council/ SFI ) fund part time PhD's. SUSI funding won't cover it either. Normally part timers would be expected to be in employment in the area they are researching in (ie Fulltime teacher doing part time PhD in Education) and therefore able to fund studies themselves.
For this reason most part time PhD students are in the Arts/Humanities/Social Scienes...very few in Scienced as consumables costs & or bench fees prohibitive.
Hope this helps

BabyBirch

Hellywelly wrote: »

Hi
None of the main funders (Research Council/ SFI ) fund part time PhD's. SUSI funding won't cover it either. Normally part timers would be expected to be in employment in the area they are researching in (ie Fulltime teacher doing part time PhD in Education) and therefore able to fund studies themselves.
For this reason most part time PhD students are in the Arts/Humanities/Social Scienes...very few in Scienced as consumables costs & or bench fees prohibitive.
Hope this helps

Yes thanks! I will be working in the area of my PhD (humanities) with a very supportive boss, but my contract ends before the PhD does so I was hoping to apply for external funding. Oh well!