<p>I’m not familiar at all with PhD dissertations, but I do have a little more experience with the run-of-the-mill peer reviewed paper. I recently attended (last few years) conferences of both the IEEE and the ASME and was fairly surprised by the wide variety of quality in the accepted papers. Some of them appeared to have been slapped together as an afterthought, others looked like they required significantly more work. I’ve found similar things with papers published by INFORMS and the ACM (although I’ll admit the ACM papers we’re a little more impressive to me, probably because I didn’t fully understand a lot of the particular papers I chose to look at).</p>
<p>I think the point several people have made about the Ed.D. being relatively easy rings true. I say this based upon my observations that (1) roughly half of the teachers I’ve had with an Ed.D. seemed intellectually challenged and (2) a lot of the loudmouths who go around calling themselves “Doctor” and spewing crap about this or that in the media actually have an Ed.D.</p>
<p>This is not for one moment to suggest that an Ed.D. is any evidence that the degree holder isn’t intelligent! I’ve also know Ed.D.s who were brilliant. It just suggests to me that it doesn’t require a great intellect to obtain the degree, at least at many institutions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My thesis adviser basically rested on his laurels, writing the same paper dozens of times, from about age 45 until retirement. It was kind of pathetic, even though he was highly regarded in his particular field.</p>
<p>I had a classmate who worked for a very large computer company and he joined the Ph.D. program. He had to spend two years in residence and get through his comps and proposal defense. He went back to his company and he actually did his regular job (which was manufacturing) but did more in a reserach oriented way: a lot more hypothesis testing, a lot more data collection etc. His thesis was very practical but based on very solid foundation. It is very similar to what you are suggesting. </p>
<p>The down side was that it took him a little more than 6 years (the school has a 7 year limit so the department was getting antsy) and even though he had the data already ready to go in a couple of years, it just took him so much longer to write it up while doing his regular job. The company gave him two years paid time off at the beginning, but his reserach had a lot of practical significance that the company benefited. Not sure if your company will do that, but if it will, it might be a win win. It was a challenge for him to complete due to nature of the job (he asked 6 months to write up and finish his dissertation but the company told him that he could not be paid for that as they had already given him 2 years).</p>
<p>OP wrote
</p>
<p>I work in the R & D department of a plastics manufactuer. Your above statement read very funny to me. Yes, every project will involve some “trial-and-error” or “experiments” as we call them. But where to start with, how to interpret the experimental results and design the next set of “experiments” are not as easy as you think. </p>
<p>However, I strongly believe one could achieve an equalvent of Ph. D. from working in a R & D setting with a college degree.</p>
<p>Assuming you could get a legitimate answer from someone, how can you trust someone’s judgment. What is easy for one person may be difficult for another. My advice, if you can do it, is to go to a university that awards Ph.D.s near where you live, and find out if there are dissertation defenses or mock dissertation defenses that are open to the public and sign up. The ‘hard’ part is the dissertation. A lot of people can pass Ph.D. level courses. Even then, you can’t really tell from someone else. That person might have had a good dissertation advisor and you could end up with a harsh one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s easy. I have a research-based master’s in engineering and started my career in R&D, so I know that most research is a lot more involved than what I do now. I was talking about a single case that appears to be an exception.</p>
<p>tlon11, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s a different experience for each person.</p>
<p>By the way, for those who are giving me advice about what I should do, please re-read the original post. I am not interested in getting a Ph.D. myself. I brought up the subject because I find it interesting, and I’m really enjoying everyone’s perspectives, but I’m not looking for recommendations.</p>
<p>It’s an interesting question, and one sure to get a lot of people indignant. I have taught at the high school, trade school, and university levels. I had a two-year research appointment at one of our most prestigious universities, I have published over 20 research papers in journals and in conference proceeding, I was guest editor for one of our major trade publications, I have held the title of “Senior Research Scientist” with PhD’s working for me. I have been a “Distinguished Member of Technical Staff” with a research lab for 12 years. I do not have a PhD (20 years in school was enough… I actually left the PhD program, just ready to NOT be in school again). Most people, because of my jobs and background and publications, assume I have a PhD and just last year I was giving a talk at the Univ of South Florida and was introduced as Dr Digmedia. I would not be looking for a fake degree, but if there were a way to use some of the research I’ve already done, and could work for the most part online until a critical point, believe me I would take advantage of it. Oh by the way, I also don’t want to spend my life savings to do it, either.</p>
<p>I would guess that one of the easiest Ph.D.sif there is such a thing, which I don’t think we’ve establishedwould be had in a fledgling program that has a tough time getting students, let alone making a name for itself in the academic community.</p>
<p>For example, the local branch campus of our state university offers a Ph.D. in “engineering technology”. It’s an interdisciplinary program that draws on the resources of pre-existing departments and doesn’t have any real facilities of its own yet. They’re really nice, sincere, and serious about what they do, but I get the impression that at this point they’d be happy to get any halfway-qualified warm bodies into the program. But the school has a respectable name, and I doubt that anyone unfamiliar with the program would question whether the degree is legit.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Probably so. I have a science PhD and am head of a research department in a biotech company. I have some people with PhDs on my staff and some who stopped at bachelors. But the several of the very experienced non-PhDs have, over the years, completed several large multi-year projects that would easily be dissertation-worthy had they been done at a research university instead of a private company.</p>
<p>And in theory there is no reason why companies and universities couldn’t partner to award real PhDs to those who fulfill the research requirements while working at the company provided they met all the normal requirements - coursework at the school, orals, defense of dissertation, etc. Just allow them them to count a PhD-worthy project at work toward a real degree. I think many companies would be willing to participate in such a program, but I’ve never met a school that would allow such a thing. </p>
<p>They have exactly this kind of program in France. And by no means is it “easy.” But it means you don’t have to completely put your career on hold for five years to go back to school. You just get a leave of absence from work for whatever time off you need for the coursework. That keep an eye on ensuring your work research projects are going to add up to something worthy of a real PhD.</p>
<p>Some British universities have programs where you can earn a Ph.D. in 3 or even 2 years. Thus they would certainly be significantly shorter if not easier. What I don’t know is how highly those programs are regarded. Based on time spent, a 2 year Ph.D. program would be roughly equivalent to a Masters program in the US. But if the goal is to get three letters after your name without a lot of regard for the rigor of the program then these may be worth looking into.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some of them are very highly regarded, among the world’s best, but their undergraduate system is different. Undergrads don’t take merely one-third of their courses in their major, as we do in the U.S. It’s pretty much their full-time occupation, so they enter what we think of as graduate school with a deeper background in their chosen field.</p>
<p>My master’s adviser was British, and his students, even at our American university, finished their Ph.D.s in three years. He felt that if they took any longer, they were just being lazy.</p>
<p>The British Universities seem to expect a student to have completed masters work prior to embarking on their PhD, at least the North American students I have experience with. This means approximately 5 years total. A research based PhD is not funded by the school and involves no grad student teaching, so the student can focus on just his or her research, enabling them to finish faster.</p>
<p>^^Not is all cases. I don’t know how widespread this is, but the one British PhD I know is a guy who went directly from his Bachelors degree into a 2-year PhD program. I don’t know the details but I don’t see any way that a 2-year program can pack in as much learning and experience as one would normally obtain in a typical 5-year US PhD program.</p>
<p>^ Somebody must be yanking your chain. Only sciences students can start a PhD straight after their bachelors degree in the UK (and this is becoming increasingly rare). Two year PhDs are unheard of. They normally take between three and four years.</p>
<p>^^He was a science graduate, but there was no reason to think he was yanking anyone’s chain.</p>
<p>Also, some British universities, especially older ones, award both the PhD and the DSc. My grad adviser had both, the DSc being the higher. My understanding is that a PhD indicates that you are *prepared *to do research, and a DSc indicates that you have actually demonstrated a high degree of competence in research (more like the American PhD.). Maybe someone can tell me if I’ve got it right.</p>
<p>I have never heard of a 2-year PhD in any British university.</p>
<p>For hiring anywhere (even in US) a British PhD usually is considered equivalent to a US PhD. </p>
<p>The DSc is more a degree that summarizes a successful career. Typically a 50 year old (in sciences) might package together 50 or more research papers on a theme, write an overall summary, and submit it as a DSc thesis. It is called a “senior doctorate” and is NOTHING like a US PhD!</p>
<p>Well, okay!!!</p>
<p>Agree with sorghum. The D.Sc. is an indication of high accomplishment, usually awarded many years post Ph.D. Only one D.Sc. was awarded during the years I spent in Cambridge. When a person receives a D.Sc., it can be taken for granted that <em>everyone</em> in the field already knows who the person is and what his accomplishments are. Nothing like an American Ph.D.</p>
I work with someone with an easy doctorate. Who ever gave her this degree couldn’t have met her. She’s one of the most unprofessional people I know. Don’t select based on easy. You’ll end up paying for something useless that will ultimately make you look bad in the end.