"Uncompetitive Candidate for a PhD"

Emeraldy Pebbles

Hi.

I'm a research assistant, and had been thinking of doing a PhD very seriously the last while. I inquired about one yesterday and included my CV. I received this response:

Dear _____,

Considering your CV, you would not be competitive at the moment for a PhD position. I would advise you to sign up for a 1-2 year MSc for research (not a taught MSc) if you would like to pursue a PhD in the future. There are some very good MSc programs in the UK, and successful graduates from these programs have many avenues open.

Best regards

_______

I have to admit, I'm a bit crushed. I know there is leass funding around now, so it is more competitive but I thought you kinda learn during a PhD. I've worked in industry and research so am not completely green here. Frankly, I can't afford to do an MRes, and I didn't really think one was necessary. Is it? Or is this just a very harsh response?

Thanks!

PS Honesty welcomed, I might just need a big reality check!

cgc5483

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Hi.

I'm a research assistant, and had been thinking of doing a PhD very seriously the last while. I inquired about one yesterday and included my CV. I received this response:



I have to admit, I'm a bit crushed. I know there is leass funding around now, so it is more competitive but I thought you kinda learn during a PhD. I've worked in industry and research so am not completely green here. Frankly, I can't afford to do an MRes, and I didn't really think one was necessary. Is it? Or is this just a very harsh response?

Thanks!

PS Honesty welcomed, I might just need a big reality check!

Hi OP,

Without knowing what the field of research was it's difficult to say. In my field of cellular/molecular biology it would seem like quite a harsh reply. Although it's become more competitive I'm not sure that directing someone to a MSc by research is such a great idea. In fact I don't know many MSc by research programs even in the UK. There are not too many project grants that would be written with a MSc student in mind.

In my case if I saw someone with experience in a research lab and also in industry I would be happier than someone straight out of college with a high scoring degree or even someone with a MSc. Wouldn't take it too much to heart. If you get on with your current supervisor I would suggest that you have a chat with them and mention that you are considering a PhD and ask them to tell you what they think of your suitability (or if that isn't possible someone who would be involved in hiring PhDs similar in your field).

out of interest, what is the driving force for you wanting to do a PhD?

Best of luck!

stinkle

I agree with the above, and actually started into a PhD after working as a research assistant for a year (in a different lab). I also know other people who have done this so I wouldn't worry too much if you really want to do a PhD - it's certainly not a disadvantage. You might have been unlucky.

I recall a potential supervisor mentioning to me during a PhD interview that "it's different to being a research assistant - you can't expect to clock off at 5pm every day during a PhD" - well obviously! And for the record my own RA experience didn't involve routinely working 9-5 anyway! You might want to bear this in mind that potential supervisors might have this kind of prejudice (unwarranted, IMHO), and maybe tailor cover letters/interview comments accordingly. My response to that comment was I certainly wanted my "own" project to get stuck into, rather than work according to someone else's plan as I was doing as an RA.

bduffy

This has all the hallmarks of a supervisor looking for a student who would require minimum supervision and therefore not eat into their time. While it's a slap in the face, you need to look at your CV and see what gave that opinion. It would suggest that you never met the supervisor in person (or maybe there was more to the response that we've not seen?) and so a face to face would be recommended as they need to work with you for over 3 years.
If the distance is too far then you'd need to call them. This initial call/meeting will let them know what your communication skills are like too!
Best of luck!
B

Emeraldy Pebbles

Thanks for both your responses.

More info, my field is microbiology, and this PhD was an Immunology/Microbiology interdisciplinary type thing. I should also point out that the responder is not a native English speaker, which might be a factor.

Oh, there is an MRes in Imperial, that's all I can think of.

stinkle

Field is similar to my own so, if your undergrad degree is 2.1 or more then an MSc is a bonus really - most people go straight into a PhD. It's a few years since I was in your shoes but honestly never got any negativity due to not having an MSc. Times might have changed of course. If you've gained anything extra from your work (new techniques, a publication, even things like time-management and presentations) then make sure to include it on your CV. I can't see how someone with lab experience is at a disadvantage to anyone fresh out of college.

cgc5483

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Thanks for both your responses.

More info, my field is microbiology, and this PhD was an Immunology/Microbiology interdisciplinary type thing. I should also point out that the responder is not a native English speaker, which might be a factor.

Oh, there is an MRes in Imperial, that's all I can think of.

I would guess that not being a native English speaker isn't the problem but it potentially point to what it could be. Some PIs who have been educated and trained in other European countries don't particularly like the level of lab experience someone having just completed a BSc degree here in Ireland has. I would suggest that you are not highlighting enough what you have learned in your role as a research assistant and from industry. It's probably harder I would imagine to get a position as a RA than a PhD studentship here at the moment as there is a plethora of people with PhD who can't get post-docs and are willing to work as RAs. That really goes back to my question of why you want the PhD.

As bduffy suggested it does suggest a supervisor who isn't going to have much interest in the supervision part. Don't think making face to face contact with them is going to acheive anything as they have already made their mind up and doubt it would be for changing.

Get someone to look over your CV and tailor your cover letter for each position highlighting the skill sets you have and your suitability for the role.

Emeraldy Pebbles

cgc5483 wrote: »

I would guess that not being a native English speaker isn't the problem but it potentially point to what it could be. Some PIs who have been educated and trained in other European countries don't particularly like the level of lab experience someone having just completed a BSc degree here in Ireland has.

That's a really good point actually. I remember my tutor in college, who was German, telling me all they had to do to earn undergraduate and postgraduate degrees there. It was much more full-on than here!

Of course, another thing to consider is that PIs very often have someone in mind for the studentship, and only advertise as a formality.

Oh and yes, I won't be contacting this particular person again.

Why do I want to do a PhD? Because I love being in a research lab, and am itching to do my own project rather than someone else's!

ancapailldorcha

I would've thought being a Research Assistant would have been a huge boost to your chances. I got a 2.2 degree and a Technician post which probably means I'm miles behind. The head of the academic team at work is doing an MRes but I think that's because he wanted research and the head of the company, who is a lecturer/consultant/PI really didn't want him leaving. I don't think MRes posts are all that common but I certainly could be wrong. I always thought they were given to lab technicians who'd been in the job a while.

Black Swan

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

I'm a research assistant, and had been thinking of doing a PhD very seriously the last while. I inquired about one yesterday and included my CV. I received this response:

"Considering your CV, you would not be competitive at the moment for a PhD position."

Your CV may need revision to elaborate upon the knowledge and skills you obtained as an RA. Further, did the CV provide a brief summary of the researches you assisted, including their PI name, funding sources, designs, analytic techniques, results, reports, and peer-reviewed publications? My CV has mini-research abstracts for each of the projects I RA'd.

Turbulent Bill

The "...not be competitive" bit suggests to me that they only want people with a 1.1, either due to the supervisor's preference, the requirements of the funding agency or that the applicant is expected to bring their own funding with them (e.g., from the UK equivalent of IRCSET). It's phrased a bit harshly, but it's better to know up front than be dragged through an application process for the sake of it.

I'm a few years out of academia, but from what I understand funding has tightened up a lot while demand has increased, so it's no surprise that PhDs are hard to come by.

TheBunk1

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Hi.

I'm a research assistant, and had been thinking of doing a PhD very seriously the last while. I inquired about one yesterday and included my CV. I received this response:



I have to admit, I'm a bit crushed. I know there is leass funding around now, so it is more competitive but I thought you kinda learn during a PhD. I've worked in industry and research so am not completely green here. Frankly, I can't afford to do an MRes, and I didn't really think one was necessary. Is it? Or is this just a very harsh response?

Thanks!

PS Honesty welcomed, I might just need a big reality check!

Hi

For me, that seems quite a harsh response. If you really want to do a PhD, an MRes is just going to add two years to your end goal and is certainly not a pre-requisite for a PhD. If anything, I would say you've probably learned more techniques by working on a number of projects as a RA than you'd get in the MRes.

I'm nearing the end of my PhD (microbiology too) and I did a taught Masters before it. I regret not doing the PhD straight after my undergrad now.

I wouldn't let one rejection letter dishearten you. Did you really want that specific PhD project or are you open to a broader area of research topics, or any PhD at all?

opinion guy

What about a PhD by publication ???

Apparently this is a thing some places - I only heard of it recently. The idea being, as far as I know, you do your normal research in the course of your job and over a few years you publish some papers and if you publish enough over X years on a common theme you earn a PhD.

Honestly - thats all I know

puddles and umbrellas

opinion guy wrote: »

What about a PhD by publication ???

Apparently this is a thing some places - I only heard of it recently. The idea being, as far as I know, you do your normal research in the course of your job and over a few years you publish some papers and if you publish enough over X years on a common theme you earn a PhD.

Honestly - thats all I know

Yes, you're right. A friend of mine is doing this for her psychology PhD. Still think she has to write a final thesis (book!) at the end, but it's is significantly smaller size as the publications count towards the word count.

Sounds far more doable than the overall final book way imo - would be easier keep on top of things and work as you go. You still have to be signed up for a PhD programme though, just the format is different. A lot of 'structured PhD' programmes give you this option.

ulyssescohen

You gotta look at this from the standpoint of the admission perspective. If there is any uncertainty about your prospects as a potential PhD candidate - and most often there is a moderate degree of uncertainty - then the admission folks want to hedge their bets, particularly since PhDs are resource intensive, and also because programmes are evaluated on the basis of completion rate, among other factors. getting you to complete an MSc is actually preferable from their perspective - it provides an additional data point that can hedge against uncertainty. This is increasingly the norm.

My own two cents - consider the US strongly; in most, if not all cases, US programs provides a better experience and outcomes.

opinion guy

ulyssescohen wrote: »

You gotta look at this from the standpoint of the admission perspective. If there is any uncertainty about your prospects as a potential PhD candidate - and most often there is a moderate degree of uncertainty - then the admission folks want to hedge their bets, particularly since PhDs are resource intensive, and also because programmes are evaluated on the basis of completion rate, among other factors. getting you to complete an MSc is actually preferable from their perspective - it provides an additional data point that can hedge against uncertainty. This is increasingly the norm.

My own two cents - consider the US strongly; in most, if not all cases, US programs provides a better experience and outcomes.

In the US you generally have to pay tens of thousands per annum to do a PHD and do a minimum of 5 years, whereas in europe you can often get paid (modestly) whilst doing your Phd and minimum is 3 years. I dunno unless you get scholarship or something US seems non-competitive

ulyssescohen

I'm not too informed about the European scene, but what you say about US is not true. Most reputable programs not only provide a tuition waiver, but also a stipend and in some cases health insurance.

opinion guy wrote: »

In the US you generally have to pay tens of thousands per annum to do a PHD and do a minimum of 5 years, whereas in europe you can often get paid (modestly) whilst doing your Phd and minimum is 3 years. I dunno unless you get scholarship or something US seems non-competitive

opinion guy

ulyssescohen wrote: »

I'm not too informed about the European scene, but what you say about US is not true. Most reputable programs not only provide a tuition waiver, but also a stipend and in some cases health insurance.

Well perhap you know better about that - but it is true that US PhD programs are 5 years long is it not?

ulyssescohen

I don't have the exact statistics, but five years seems right as the median.

What is the average in Europe? Obviously depends somewhat on discipline?

opinion guy wrote: »

Well perhap you know better about that - but it is true that US PhD programs are 5 years long is it not?

lonestargirl

opinion guy wrote: »

In the US you generally have to pay tens of thousands per annum to do a PHD and do a minimum of 5 years, whereas in europe you can often get paid (modestly) whilst doing your Phd and minimum is 3 years. I dunno unless you get scholarship or something US seems non-competitive

US generally provides a stipend + health insur

ulyssescohen

plus tuition waiver right?

lonestargirl wrote: »

US generally provides a stipend + health insur

lonestargirl

opinion guy wrote: »

In the US you generally have to pay tens of thousands per annum to do a PHD and do a minimum of 5 years, whereas in europe you can often get paid (modestly) whilst doing your Phd and minimum is 3 years. I dunno unless you get scholarship or something US seems non-competitive

US generally provides a stipend + health insurance. The graduate school I attended didn't
allow unfunded students at all for PhDs but they did for MSc. It is usually 5 years but it is seen as preparing you for an academic career, by the time you are finished you will have taught classes and done a lot of publishing and presenting. They also encourage you to apply for grants etc in your own right as this track record will be important when moving on in academia.

lonestargirl

ulyssescohen wrote: »

plus tuition waiver right?

Yes

Black Swan

ulyssescohen wrote: »

I'm not too informed about the European scene, but what you say about US is not true. Most reputable programs not only provide a tuition waiver, but also a stipend and in some cases health insurance.

Many flagship universities in the States budget for and limit enrollment of PhDs providing free tuition, fees, small stipends, scholarships, and TA or RA compensated part-time employment. These are highly competitive. Faculty research grants often include PhD support in exchange for RA work. I'm across the pond in a fully funded degree programme now, and RA on a faculty grant to make ends meet.

Confusion arises from the fact that the States also have several private non-profit universities, as well as programmes within medium and some major public university departments, that offer PhD (and other doctorate) programmes to tuition and fee paying students, so we cannot generalise about the US regarding this highly variable issue.

Unfortunately, there are also diploma mills in the US, where the degree received is essentially worthless.

opinion guy wrote: »

Well perhap you know better about that - but it is true that US PhD programs are 5 years long is it not?

The length of time to complete a PhD in the States from a major university varies by discipline. Hard sciences (chemistry, biology, physics, etc.) generally take longer. I cannot remember the source at the moment, but I had read that Stateside chemistry PhDs were now averaging 7 years.

Unlike some universities outside the States, there is a required coursework curriculum calculated in quarter units or semester hours, generally taking about 2 years to complete before the research/dissertation sustaining component begins. If admitted without a masters degree in the discipline pursued, this may add an additional one to two years of coursework.

That's the good news; now for the bad. In past editions of The Chronicle of Higher Education I have read that approximately half of all students that reach ABD fail to finish in the States.

ancapailldorcha

I remember being told about the Fulbright scholarships while at Uni. I never considered it as an option. Is it hugely competitive?

Black Swan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I remember being told about the Fulbright scholarships while at Uni. I never considered it as an option. Is it hugely competitive?

Fulbright competition statistics.

ancapailldorcha

Thanks. I wrote off the US as an option years ago. Thought about emailing a few PIs but I should think they'd be swamped with such emails.

ulyssescohen

I can't seem to find statistics for Ireland...what you posted is South Africa??

Black Swan wrote: »

Fulbright competition statistics.

avalon68

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thanks. I wrote off the US as an option years ago. Thought about emailing a few PIs but I should think they'd be swamped with such emails.

Honestly, they are. But the vast majority of emails are from India and china, poorly written and generic. Write a good letter, and follow up. Although, for most good universities you apply to a program and you decide which lab you will be in after rotating in 3 or 4 different labs during the first year. You have probably missed the deadlines for this year already as interviews are usually held in feb. top notch marks are essential, research experience almost essential for the sciences,and lots of extracurricular stuff is usually a must as well. Of course standards vary between universities but generally I would advise to apply to multiple programmes with staff you would like to work with if you plan on going the US route.

Black Swan

ulyssescohen wrote: »

I can't seem to find statistics for Ireland...what you posted is South Africa??

The site loads a bit slow. Scroll down below Africa and Europe is also shown, as are Asia and the Middle East. Did not see stats for Ireland in the Europe section.

You may wish to review the Fulbright scholarship site for Ireland, and this link shows 37 receiving Fulbrights for 2012-2013.

ancapailldorcha

avalon68 wrote: »

Honestly, they are. But the vast majority of emails are from India and china, poorly written and generic. Write a good letter, and follow up. Although, for most good universities you apply to a program and you decide which lab you will be in after rotating in 3 or 4 different labs during the first year. You have probably missed the deadlines for this year already as interviews are usually held in feb. top notch marks are essential, research experience almost essential for the sciences,and lots of extracurricular stuff is usually a must as well. Of course standards vary between universities but generally I would advise to apply to multiple programmes with staff you would like to work with if you plan on going the US route.

Hmm... I never thought of that. I got a 2-2 on my degree and am currently living in the UK trying to fulfill the eligibility criteria in case something interesting comes up here or Ireland.