UK vs US PhDs

[35mm_]

Hey everyone I wanted to start a thread about choosing between UK and US PhD programs. As many of us might be stuck between these very fortunate but equally distressing choices, I felt some advice from folks here might prove helpful.

Some of such questions that have crossed my mind so far: 

What are some of the major differences that one should consider while making a decision? 

Does a three year PhD from UK disadvantage you in the US?

Does one make you better prepared for the job market than the other? 

How much weightage should one give to accessibility of archives?

I have been told that US programs typically prepare you more for teaching while in the UK one has to actively seek these opportunities? 

Are certain fields more popular in one place over the other? (For example science and war seems to be huge in the US while themes about empire and science seem to be more widely discussed in the UK)

Thanks! 

 P.S I am a history of sci&tech applicant currently deciding between UPenn/Princeton and Cambridge (HPS) / Oxford (History of Science). 

[OHSP]

The reality is that, everything else aside, US programs do a much better job of preparing you for the US job market. If you’re planning on applying for US TT jobs in 6 or 7 years, Princeton and UPenn are going to leave you better-placed. In the UK you’ll be starting your dissertation pretty much as soon as you enter and that wasn’t appealing to me—there’s something to be said for coursework and exams. The two to three years I have to get my head around various fields and to take classes outside of my field is invaluable. 

[Tigla]

I will more than likely be going to a UK university this upcoming semester. After doing quite a bit of research and talking to UK postgraduates and PhD candidates, the differences disappear quite quickly. Most UK universities offer PhD candidates the ability to teach, take classes, and extend your dissertation to 4 years (but not any further). On top of that, the UK has more funding options for European research trips (at least the universities I applied to) because the cost of travel is cut by 80% in comparison to the USA. However, the real issue comes down to finances. American universities tend to offer funding for all candidates, while the UK makes you compete with the rest of the graduate school. In short, most UK universities have started to realize that the rigidity within the 3-year system has made them less attractive to international students, therefore, the universities are beginning to change and adopt some of the perks from the American system.

[historyperson]

US PhDs are more competitive on both sides of the Atlantic (at least in US history), and certainly more competitive in the US. Especially when your US PhD options are Penn or Princeton. Doing coursework and comprehensive exams will prepare you to teach, which is what most professorships emphasize. The US degree will serve you better by setting you up for a broader range of options. While non-academics can be impressed by European institutions on your CV, in my experience most historians recognize a US degree as a better indicator of depth and breadth of training. And it's other historians who will be evaluating you for a job, if you want to enter academia. It's still possible for you to give yourself that depth and breadth on your own, and to be an impressive historian, coming out of a UK institution. But in the early going, you will have to work harder to demonstrate that you can teach, know your field well, etc., and I don't see a great reason to put yourself through that if you don't have to.

The only caveats: if your archives are all in Europe, yes, there's an advantage to basing yourself in the UK--when it comes time to research. In my mind this is still a secondary concern to having coursework, comps, and a longer, more competitive program in the US, especially if your US program options have some guaranteed fellowship years (no teaching) where you can base yourself in the UK for a research year or two. I'd imagine Princeton, at least, is good at this. If your 100% perfect advisor is in the UK, and your American advising options don't feel quite right, that's another reason to consider a UK degree over an American one, as advisor fit is the most important factor when deciding between reasonably funded offers. And, of course, if you have personal reasons for wanting to be in the UK, you're in the best position to make that judgment call. But if your goal is a tenure track job in a history department, my money is on the US degree as the easiest, most competitive way forward. There are great postdoc opportunities in the UK and Europe, which would likely be the most beneficial way to get some time in the UK into your career. 

(all with a caveat that I don't know the History of Science job market) (and that getting a terminal MA in the UK can be a great option for boosting an application--my comments pertain only to a US vs. UK PhD dilemma)

Edited March 4, 2018 by historyperson

[Averroes MD]

14 hours ago, 35mm_ said:

Hey everyone I wanted to start a thread about choosing between UK and US PhD programs. As many of us might be stuck between these very fortunate but equally distressing choices, I felt some advice from folks here might prove helpful.

Some of such questions that have crossed my mind so far: 

What are some of the major differences that one should consider while making a decision? 

Does a three year PhD from UK disadvantage you in the US?

Does one make you better prepared for the job market than the other? 

How much weightage should one give to accessibility of archives?

I have been told that US programs typically prepare you more for teaching while in the UK one has to actively seek these opportunities? 

Are certain fields more popular in one place over the other? (For example science and war seems to be huge in the US while themes about empire and science seem to be more widely discussed in the UK)

Thanks! 

 P.S I am a history of sci&tech applicant currently deciding between UPenn/Princeton and Cambridge (HPS) / Oxford (History of Science). 

I'm in Religion, but I think the answers still apply. I also was picking between Oxford and Harvard, and chose Harvard... Although for me, I lost my funding source at Oxford... But, even if I had gotten funding at Oxford, I'd still have chosen Harvard (or any other highly ranked US program).

Does a three year PhD from UK disadvantage you in the US?

Yes.

Does one make you better prepared for the job market than the other? 

Yes.

How much weightage should one give to accessibility of archives?

Don't know.

I have been told that US programs typically prepare you more for teaching while in the UK one has to actively seek these opportunities? 

Yep.

As long as there is no major knock against it, I would choose Princeton. You gotta be realistic with placement after graduation. You are already fighting an uphill battle. 

In addition, I think US program will train you better, due to (1) stricter language requirements, (2) coursework, (3) comprehensives, (4) teaching, etc. However, this isn't to deny that there must be some super stars at UK programs... I'm just saying: if you have a choice between US and UK--especially when one of those choices is Princeton or UPenn--the choice becomes easy.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Averroes MD

[lordtiandao]

A US degree from a prestigious school is certainly more recognizable on the job market. HK universities all prefer graduates from top 10-20 US universities and it's becoming increasingly difficult for PhDs from HK, UK, and elsewhere to find tenure positions here.

[TMP]

In short, choose US PhD.  I've talked with PhD students from UK, French, Israeli, Swiss, and German universities and they're all jealous of my PhD training- the ability to study so much more than your dissertation topic through coursework and exams.  And, oh, readily available teaching opportunities.

[OHSP]

21 hours ago, Tigla said:

 In short, most UK universities have started to realize that the rigidity within the 3-year system has made them less attractive to international students, therefore, the universities are beginning to change and adopt some of the perks from the American system.

At the moment this really just means maybe (depending on the school) giving you four rather than 3 years to complete your dissertation, it doesn't mean years of coursework devoted to establishing expertise in fields, which is the main difference between the two systems.

[Tigla]

3 hours ago, OHSP said:

At the moment this really just means maybe (depending on the school) giving you four rather than 3 years to complete your dissertation, it doesn't mean years of coursework devoted to establishing expertise in fields, which is the main difference between the two systems.

Yes, that is correct. However, the blanket statement/idea that the UK is far behind American programs is starting to become harder to defend. I have been offered research assistantships for my first year which is followed by teaching responsibilities for the next two years at both Oxford and University of Birmingham. Also, conference and travel funding has been moved from a university-level decision to the department. From my experience, the UK system is realizing its deficiencies and attempting to mitigate them in order to become more competitive with American PhDs. However, the UK system is still geared towards crafting a dissertation within a defined topic/area (and probably will remain so regardless of the changes).

[psstein]

What is your research area? Cambridge is far better than Princeton/UPenn in some areas, but pales in comparison to others.

 

[35mm_]

Thank you everyone! That was very helpful!

2 hours ago, psstein said:

What is your research area? Cambridge is far better than Princeton/UPenn in some areas, but pales in comparison to others.

That was my impression as well. Histories of science and the empire, which is what I study, seem great at Cambridge. 

[anon1234567]

4 hours ago, psstein said:

What is your research area? Cambridge is far better than Princeton/UPenn in some areas, but pales in comparison to others.

 

Agreed. The Cambridge History of Science program is superb. That's a blanket statement. 

If you choose to stay on this side of the pond, then Penn over Princeton. Penn's History and Sociology of Science is excellent. Their training is what other programs aspire to, their faculty is supportive, and the student body is cohesive and very friendly. 

[anon1234567]

But Princeton over Penn if you want a broad history training. Penn's HSS is a stand alone program. Not sure what their relationship is with the history department. Penn's history department, however, is superb! 

But look at placement rates because history of science grads usually get history jobs, rather than history of science jobs, those are rare. 

[psstein]

8 hours ago, anon1234567 said:

Agreed. The Cambridge History of Science program is superb. That's a blanket statement. 

If you choose to stay on this side of the pond, then Penn over Princeton. Penn's History and Sociology of Science is excellent. Their training is what other programs aspire to, their faculty is supportive, and the student body is cohesive and very friendly. 

Princeton is a good HoS department, but lacks faculty in a few critical areas. Tony Grafton's quasi-retirement has left them in a very tough spot with regard to early modern work. Jenny Rampling is a good scholar, but Newman/Principe/their students have done early modern chymistry to death.

 

[anon1234567]

Well yes, it is nested in the broader history department, which is excellent. But all the schools/programs @35mm_ was admitted into are excellent, so really the decisive factors are mentorship, placement, funding, and location.   

[gnossienne n.3]

Princeton's HoS is a standalone degree within the History department. It's not a standalone department, though it has a separate application process from the History PhD. The relationship between the departments is sort of moot, given they are in fact the same department.

For what it's worth, Cambridge is significantly stronger than Oxford for HoS, in terms of both name recognition and topic coverage. You'll know your interests and presumably have weighed the programs against those yourself, but Cambridge is known for HoS in ways that Oxford is not.

[Katzenmusik]

I was just talking with a scholar who holds an Oxbridge Ph.D.  He told me about his post-Ph.D. job search back in the US, and how difficult it was. He had absolutely no scholarly network in this country and no experience teaching whatsoever.  He didn't even know if he would enjoy teaching, a job which he had theoretically committed to doing (in the best-case scenario) for the rest of his career. 

Fortunately, after herculean job-search efforts, he did eventually get a tenure-track position, figured out teaching, and it all worked out.  But it was pretty scary for a bit and could easily have gone the other way.

He did say the positive aspect of a UK Ph.D. was just being able to focus purely on the dissertation for those three years, with no other distractions. He seems to have briefly lived the idealized life of the mind. But I did get the sense that he regretted the choice, from a practical standpoint.  

I vote for Princeton!  :-)

[35mm_]

Decided on Penn!

I spoke to my prospective supervisor at length and figured Penn would be best as a lot of the faculty in my field is there plus the coursework and language requirements would greatly help in writing the dissertation. 

Thanks to everyone who helped!