Getting on a PhD Programme

Tupamaros

Hi Folks,

Just wondering, how difficult is it to get an offer from a pretty decent Uni for a PhD. I will be applying to a number of highly ranked colleges: LSE, UCL, KCL in the UK and TCD and UCD in Ireland. I realise that funding is unlikely without a first (I have a 2.1 undergrad and will be getting a 2.1 MA I'd guess) but are general offers hard to get?:cool:

Raphael

What field?

gutenberg

Tupamaros wrote: »

Hi Folks,

Just wondering, how difficult is it to get an offer from a pretty decent Uni for a PhD. I will be applying to a number of highly ranked colleges: LSE, UCL, KCL in the UK and TCD and UCD in Ireland. I realise that funding is unlikely without a first (I have a 2.1 undergrad and will be getting a 2.1 MA I'd guess) but are general offers hard to get?:cool:

Raphael wrote: »

What field?

I presume if the OP is applying to somewhere like the LSE, it'll be a humanities/social sciences-type field?

To the OP - if you have a solid 2.1 (i.e. you haven't just scraped one), and you have a good research proposal that fits well with the interests of their staff, then I'd say you would have a good chance of getting offers - especially if you've done well in relevant modules to the proposed PhD topic, or have good dissertation marks from undergrad & your Master's thesis. I know people at all these universities, and all of them (funnily enough!) have 2.1s from undergrad, so it is definitely possible. The key is having an appropriate project for that particular department, and supervisor.


Funding, on the other hand, would be unlikely.

Raphael

...especially if they're getting an MA to boot. I should read things better. >.<

My fiancée was able to get into a PhD in History in UCD despite only having a (barely under) 2.2 in her masters. How she swung it was reapplying with her Masters thesis supervisor who thought her research was worthwhile.

Essentially, there's 2 things that are hard to get (in my experience) - funding, and a supervisor. To echo what gutenberg said, fundings probably not gonna happen with a 2.1, but if you can get someone willing to supervise you, then getting into a program is the easy part.

Overall though, it should be pretty doable if you're serious about it, and can convey that.

Tupamaros

Thanks for the replies folks, very helpful.

The field is political science. Unfortunately I am guilty of just scraping a 2.1 at undergrad. I think my MA will be a bit more of a solid 2.1.

Raphael what do you mean 'reapplying' with the aid of the supervisor, had she been rejected previously? I'm quite surprised a 2.2, even if barely under, got her on a PhD programme. But that's the issue, it seems that a large part of the decision-making process on the part of the university comes down to suitability with a supervisor. I looked at the rejection rates for colleges like LSE and KCL and assumed I wouldn't have a hope with a crap undergrad and an ok 2.1 MA if it comes. Perhaps I'm being slightly pessimistic.

And a question for both of you as you seem quite knowledgeable in this regard (and Gutenberg knowing people in all these Unis is interesting), how would the likes of UCD be regarded internationally for a PhD?

djpbarry

Tupamaros wrote: »

...how would the likes of UCD be regarded internationally for a PhD?

Where you do your PhD is of relatively little importance. What matters is your supervisor and the resources at your disposal. If you produce good quality publications during the course of your PhD, then prospective employers are not really going to be all that interested in the reputation of the institution on the cover of your thesis. In fact, personally, I would have serious reservations about working for anyone who got hung up on such things.

gutenberg

Tupamaros wrote: »

Thanks for the replies folks, very helpful.

The field is political science. Unfortunately I am guilty of just scraping a 2.1 at undergrad. I think my MA will be a bit more of a solid 2.1.

Raphael what do you mean 'reapplying' with the aid of the supervisor, had she been rejected previously? I'm quite surprised a 2.2, even if barely under, got her on a PhD programme. But that's the issue, it seems that a large part of the decision-making process on the part of the university comes down to suitability with a supervisor. I looked at the rejection rates for colleges like LSE and KCL and assumed I wouldn't have a hope with a crap undergrad and an ok 2.1 MA if it comes. Perhaps I'm being slightly pessimistic.

And a question for both of you as you seem quite knowledgeable in this regard (and Gutenberg knowing people in all these Unis is interesting), how would the likes of UCD be regarded internationally for a PhD?

djpbarry wrote: »

Where you do your PhD is of relatively little importance. What matters is your supervisor and the resources at your disposal. If you produce good quality publications during the course of your PhD, then prospective employers are not really going to be all that interested in the reputation of the institution on the cover of your thesis. In fact, personally, I would have serious reservations about working for anyone who got hung up on such things.

OP I'd be inclined to agree with djpbarry, at PhD level so much of it is about the supervisor. They're the ones with the contacts, the expertise and so on - the world expert on your niche topic could be at the University of Nowhere, but if he/she is *the* person on the topic you should probably try to work with them. Publications, conference papers etc are very important during your PhD, and a good supervisor will push you into doing those kinds of things.

As regards political science, I think TCD's department far outranks UCD's - TCD's is one of the best in Europe, according to league tables (dodgy at best...) But UCD in general is well regarded I think, at least in the UK - though if you're looking towards America (where a lot of polsci research and teaching posts are), then it's not as well known, even compared to TCD.

Raphael

Tupamaros wrote: »

Thanks for the replies folks, very helpful.

The field is political science. Unfortunately I am guilty of just scraping a 2.1 at undergrad. I think my MA will be a bit more of a solid 2.1.

Raphael what do you mean 'reapplying' with the aid of the supervisor, had she been rejected previously? I'm quite surprised a 2.2, even if barely under, got her on a PhD programme. But that's the issue, it seems that a large part of the decision-making process on the part of the university comes down to suitability with a supervisor. I looked at the rejection rates for colleges like LSE and KCL and assumed I wouldn't have a hope with a crap undergrad and an ok 2.1 MA if it comes. Perhaps I'm being slightly pessimistic.

And a question for both of you as you seem quite knowledgeable in this regard (and Gutenberg knowing people in all these Unis is interesting), how would the likes of UCD be regarded internationally for a PhD?

No, was her first application, just meant that she was working with the same supervisor as her MA. Normally it's strict 2.1 minimum, but her supervisor wrote a letter saying "This person is competent, and I will supervise them" as part of her app, and that was that.

Tupamaros

This is all great, sometimes it can be hard to pin down lecturers to talk things out fully. Having surveyed the websites of the likes of KCL and LSE their rejection rates for courses gave me the impression that, due to stiff competition, a 1.1 undergrand and 1.1 masters would be required. So this thread has given me a bit of encouragement.

The reason I ask about reputations of institutions is that I intend to lecture and would like to do so in different countries. For instance, I imagined that getting a PhD from LSE would lend one to have a better chance of working in a good US uni, rather than say having UCD on your CV. Judging by the above comments, this was a misconception on my part, and if it does arise, says more about the superficial standards of those advertising the position.

gutenberg

Tupamaros wrote: »

This is all great, sometimes it can be hard to pin down lecturers to talk things out fully. Having surveyed the websites of the likes of KCL and LSE their rejection rates for courses gave me the impression that, due to stiff competition, a 1.1 undergrand and 1.1 masters would be required. So this thread has given me a bit of encouragement.

The reason I ask about reputations of institutions is that I intend to lecture and would like to do so in different countries. For instance, I imagined that getting a PhD from LSE would lend one to have a better chance of working in a good US uni, rather than say having UCD on your CV. Judging by the above comments, this was a misconception on my part, and if it does arise, says more about the superficial standards of those advertising the position.

I'm sure you're aware of this, but lecturing is *really* hard to get into, even moreso nowadays. The fact that you're willing to move around is good as it'll increase your chances of getting a job, but even still, it's a long shot. I was talking to my supervisor here, and he reckons that in the future a lot of academic jobs will be appointed on the basis of research & your ability to attract funding- and in the case of arts/humanities/social sciences, that will start from whether or not you were funded for your PhD, as it demonstrates your competitiveness in relation to others... Just a thought! Good luck with the applications!

djpbarry

gutenberg wrote: »

I'm sure you're aware of this, but lecturing is *really* hard to get into...

That really depends on what it is you want to lecture.

gutenberg

djpbarry wrote: »

That really depends on what it is you want to lecture.

Indeed. But as the OP is a humanity/social science subject, in general these are rather more difficult to establish oneself in as a permanent lecturer.

HavingCrack

Tupamaros wrote: »

For instance, I imagined that getting a PhD from LSE would lend one to have a better chance of working in a good US uni, rather than say having UCD on your CV. Judging by the above comments, this was a misconception on my part, and if it does arise, says more about the superficial standards of those advertising the position.

It is worth bearing in mind however that it can be a good idea to move to a different institution for your PhD than that you attended as an undergraduate or masters student to prevent 'academic incest'. It opens you up to new ideas and new departments etc. and prevents you getting 'stuck in a rut'.

Unless a supervisor in your current university is a world leader in their field or one you really, really, really want to work with moving is a good idea.