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.