I have a hankering to pursue a PhD. I have a BS in engineering, a MS in engineering, am pursing a 2nd MS in engineering, and thinking it’d be a fun to pursue a PhD at some point.
I’m running into a lot of problems. First of all the PhD programs offerings in my town (PhD pretty much have to be pursued on-site because of research requirements) are extremely competitive. By “extremely”, I mean that getting a slot is like winning a raffle at a fundraiser. 45 people out of 1,200 got in at my local college.
Second problem is that they require 3-5 years of full time study, which means quitting my day job, which I don’t want to do.
And then there is the fact that I have a family and only have limited time to pursue further education.
At this point, I think I might pursue a PhD after I retire in another 15 years or so. Might give me something to do in retirement and then my kids will be in college themselves (hopefully!) or otherwise launched, so I’m not nearly in the same position with regards of competing with family.
These are my random musings at this time. Any thoughts or comments?
My father was an aeronautical engineer, BS UConn in 1936 (probably first engineering class there; he had focused on physical chemistry). He was often annoyed by PhD engineers b/c they could do the calculations but weren’t always very creative. But as head of R&D lab in his large aerospace company he was also the “father” of several developments, one of which was estimated by a colleague of his to ultimately have contributed $100 million to the business of the company.
This is probably a generational difference. Today he’d have had to pursue an additional degree. But the payoff to him from engineering was the great range of areas and programs in which he was involved. And in lieu of further diplomas he received the “credits” in the form of patents.
I actually looked some into this recently. The problem I ran into was requirements for letter of recs from professors for applications. I am in my late 50s and any professors from 30+ years ago… Yeah, good luck with that.
I would think you’d need to find a program that would allow you to work st the same time. I did my master’s degree as a mom with a houseful of kids, so did my husband, but it wasn’t that kind of commitment.
If you know the research that you would want to pursue, you could go have a chat with the people who are doing that. Part-time study might very well be possible.
Dreams remain long after our young adulthood but as you have found out remain just that. Being a full time student seems a logical necessity. Consider what you would be taught and consider self studying the material via online and other materials. Doing the research would not happen- I can see why any decent program would want you to be on campus full time. Masters degree programs are very different than PhD ones. Some fields also lend themselves to part time and distance learning.
Reality has gotten in the way of your dreams. You can’t have everything, something needs to be given up. Years ago you gave up the PhD (assuming you could have gotten into a program) for a job. Same thing now- you would need to give up the job. Plus you are far less competitive than you were back then. My impression is also that engineering fields more often utilize the masters level rather than the doctorate level for most jobs, unlike many pure sciences.
Keep learning for the love of knowledge without needing a piece of paper to prove it.
I don’t know much about engineering PhDs, but most PhD programs are not designed to be pursued part-time, at least in the early years, and they are not retirement entertainment. They are hard, underpaid, full-time-plus jobs that usually involve intense personal engagement with one or two faculty members. They are extremely competitive because good programs are generally fully funded, i.e., they pay you, you don’t pay them. (That may not be true for engineering PhDs, though, as I think it isn’t for PsyDs and EdDs.)
My mother went back to graduate school in her early 50s. She had already earned a masters degree part-time a few years before, and after she quit her job – for other reasons – she entered a PhD program. She ultimately completed her dissertation and got her degree at age 61, although at that point she had been a full-time college faculty member for four years. She taught for another 12 years after that, although never as tenure-track faculty, until Parkinson’s made it too difficult for her to continue.
Most universities have continuing education programs that would allow you to take a course at a time to learn new skills or to sharpen old ones, without necessarily committing yourself to a degree program. That may be more what you are looking for: intellectual stimulation and improved skills, but not a complete career change or something you have to sacrifice your family for.
The mission of most PhD programs, especially respectable/elite ones is such that they must be pursued full-time.
While a few part-time PhD programs do exist, they tend to be offered by sketchy for-profit type colleges and as such, have the same stigma associated with them even if a particular part-time program is through a legit institution.
Moreover, going part-time or even asking about it as a prospective applicant is likely to cause most departments/prospective advisers to question your “seriousness” in the form of dedication/commitment to the field.
In their view, one key prerequisite is for you to go full-time and with some old-school Profs, literally dedicate every waking moment on the PhD program whether in the form of courses, lab work, working on adviser’s pet academic projects, research for dissertation, etc.
This aspect is one reason why a Prof I had once said “Anyone who is of reasonable intelligence and is willing to put in the requisite effort can complete a Masters. Not everyone even with the intelligence/willingness to put in the requisite effort can complete a PhD.”
I started taking courses 1 per semester in Spring 02 at the age of 43, while adjuncting and raising 2 kids. After 6 semesters of that, I applied for matriculation and was offered a teaching assistant position which paid as well as the adjunct position I gave up. (Don’t underestimate the value of English as your native language.) I finished the required coursework and the qualifying exams in 3 more semesters. In Fall 06 I started as a Research Assistant with a PhD advisor. I was an RA for 3 years and a TA for another year while I did my research project and dissertation. 9 years, gate to gate.
The only stipulation the University had was that once you matriculate you have to finish in 7 years. Otherwise, you can take courses part time until you are ready to do that.
I wouldn’t necessarily equate passing PE exams as equivalent to degrees…especially a thesis-based MS/PhD.
Especially considering one uncle who passed both parts was by his own words “went to classes in a fog” and whose undergrad academic performance was so mediocre the only lesson he wanted younger relatives including yours truly to learn from accounts of his undergrad experience was to NOT DO WHAT HE DID: waste the learning opportunities availed to him during undergrad.
He still feels strongly about that to this day despite passing and working successfully as a PE for several decades and still being sought after for consultations even after nearly 2 decades of retirement.
Incidentally, one of his kids did get a PhD in EE and he regards that as a greater achievement than his undergrad/MS and yes…passing his PE exam.
Some jobs require a PE. Some jobs prefer a PhD. Certainly, if this person wants to teach on the college level, a PhD with research would be a good idea. If this person wants to work on government contracts…a PE will be required.
I will add, however, that my engineer husband says the best faculty he had did NOT have PhDs…they had practical experience in the field of engineering.
But if @engineer4life wants a PhD…sure…go for it. There will likely have to be some compromises made along the way (already has mentioned his job).
However, equating one with the other obscures the great differences in how they tend to be regarded and more importantly, the purposes behind each and the amount of work each involves.
A PE license is strictly a professional licensing exam to ensure one has demonstrated academic AND professional knowledge of the standard necessary to be licensed as a PE.
It doesn’t approach the level of work/academic rigor required for a PhD even given the fact it’s a 2 part exam. First part taken after undergrad, second after several years working in the engineering field.
Taking a two part exam…even a demanding one isn’t on the same level as taking 2-2.5 years of coursework, mastering required languages/academic skills, oral/written exams, submitting a dissertation research proposal, and after said proposal is approved, doing the original research required and writing it up in a PhD dissertation sufficient to merit a PhD.
My husband is an engineer. He is not in academia so a PhD is not essential to his work. He needs. PE for the work he does. In addition, because his firm is in the business of designing and managing engineering projects, a PE with relevant work experience is FAR more valuable than a PhD with research and the like.
If this poster wants to get a doctorate…fine. That is certainly something he or she should pursue if he or she wants to.
But your description about the rigor of a PhD program vs the everyday knowledge and skill needed to become a PE is very short sighted in certain work contexts.
Simply put…my husband would NOT hire someone simply because they have a PhD. They would need to demonstrate relevant work experience along with their academic credentials. And with that…that PhD person would need to have on the job training anyway.
The PE which requires relevant work experience is far more valuable in not academic environments, and especially design and management if design firms.
The uncle I mentioned above has worked for several decades as a professional engineer before retiring and did a Masters in engineering despite barely graduating as an engineering undergrad.
Even with his substantial professional achievements, when he saw the level of work his child had to do to complete an engineering PhD, he conceded the amount of work/rigor his kid had to undergo to complete his PhD was far above and beyond what he put in to complete undergrad/MS and pass both parts of the PE exam.
This is furthered when this same child not only been on the tenure-track/earned tenure, but dropped all of that to co-found an engineering startup which has been successful for the last 10+ years.
Theoretical and practical knowledge can be very different. All of the research- especially as it becomes more and more narrow/focused with the highest degrees does not make one a better engineer. Meeting the requirements of the PE indicates a standard that differs from just doing research. I suspect PhD engineering candidates can also pass the PE exam.
cobrat- your uncle’s degree was so many years ago his performance as an undergrad has been replaced with many years of learning while working. Those who do well in their college courses more likely have an easier time of it when starting out because their fund of knowledge is greater. Likewise, physicians become better with practice- the field I know best.
OP- you need to make choices. Your cost of getting another degree includes time not earning money along with paying for the schooling (subtracting out any funding). Perhaps you have the financial wherewithal to keep going to school instead of being a salary earning productive member of the workforce. For many of us it is more important to be doing useful work with our current skills rather than to keep educating ourselves instead. Some of us spent so many intense years getting to the point we can do the job (eg physicians) we have had more than enough intense, full time schooling that just doing the credits to keep up with licensure is enough. It can be more fun doing than studying how to do things.
“First of all the PhD programs offerings in my town (PhD pretty much have to be pursued on-site because of research requirements) are extremely competitive.
Second problem is that they require 3-5 years of full time study, which means quitting my day job, which I don’t want to do.
And then there is the fact that I have a family and only have limited time to pursue further education.”
Yep, that pretty much sums up the reality of earning a PhD: Very competitive admissions, research requirements, full time study requirements, and.not much time left over for anything else such as family.
The PhD is a research-based degree, not merely the completion of coursework the way some Master’s programs are. So by definition you are going to have to figure out some way to get that research done.and written up.
The first three sentences of the description of the PhD degree in the current graduate study handbook at my old grad school puts it this way
“The Doctor of Philosophy degree, as granted by the University of California, signifies that the recipient possesses knowledge of a broad field of learning and has given evidence of distinguished attainment in that field. It is a warrant of critical ability and powers of imagination and synthesis. It also means that the candidate has presented a dissertation containing an original contribution to knowledge in the chosen field of study.”
It’s not going to be easy given your circumstances. But I urge you not give up your dream. Older grad students are pretty rare but not unheard of. A friend of mine is currently earning her PhD in science after retiring from a successful law career. She’ll be in her early 60s when she completes her PhD. But she is not encumbered by a family or current career.