Post by Nimish Shah <***@onetel.com>Post by Robert LowPost by d***@hotmail.comGreetings! I graduated from University of New South Wales (Australia)
with a BE and MIT (Masters by coursework + thesis) in computing. Now,
I'm thinking about pursuing a PhD in the UK, but I'm wondering whether
I seem to be good enough for Cambridge and the likes. I got ~76% (first
hons.) for my BE and ~84% for my MIT. As with my publication record, I
currently have 5 under my belt. So, how likely am I to be accepted by
either Cambridge, Imperial, etc.?
One way to find out would be to contact the people where you'd
like to do your PhD with and ask them. Let them know your
degree results and give them your publication list. You don't even
need to buy a stamp to send email, so it's not as if it will cost you
much.
it's much easier to get a PhD position in many institutions if you
are providing your own funding. You might find it useful to make
the financial situation clear when you inquire.
I agree with this advice. Go for it - but make sure that you chose the right
supervisor and *not* the University - you are a grown up now, and what
counts at the end of the day is what you say in your publications/number of
publications. Having a doctorate from Imperial/Cambridge/Oxford is all very
well, but if your supervisor is not interested in your area, then getting
help/advice when you are stuck is going to be difficult, what will happen
is that you will get chucked out at the end of the first year if they think
that you are not going to finish in 3 years, hence you will get depressed
and feel that you have wasted your time and money(?); I know, this is what
happened to me many years ago - I had a supervisor who was only interested
in publishing, ie, "we can still publish and let other people find out that
it is wrong!", while I disagreed with this - hence he got rid of me at the
end of the first year, I could not appeal to the University because he
changed jobs, and so lost a lot of money/time and had a mental breakdown a
year later - all because that supervisor was a bastard! Even years later, I
am still suffering from that awful memory, the effects of a breakdown, and
a realisation that not everyone in academia is "good" or "honest". Some
will play the system, and when they get caught out - and believe me some
do, any association with them, will taint you.
Nim.
Since the discussion has now gotten into the area of finding a
dissertation supervisor I'll give a few comments. First, unless you are
very clear on your area of interest it is probably too early to commit
to a given advisor. There is a difference between getting a faculty
member involved in assisting your admission and getting them to commit
to supervising you without seeing you work. Second the selection of an
advisor is a complicated decision. There are good researchers and there
are faculty who are good at mentoring young researchers. The two are
not the same. It is always useful for a prospective advisee to consider
the record of the faculty member in graduating his students. Selection
of a good dissertation topic is difficult. It needs to be significant
and doable. I remember one individual who was always finding
interesting problems. Alas very few of his students managed to make
progress. The problems were simply too difficult. The occasional one
to graduate did well but far too many just dropped out after a very long
process. I do not think that he had students who were very inferior he
simply could not find them decent problems. He was a very good
researcher himself just not a good advisor for most students.
At this point though simply look at getting into a decent program and
then look for a decent advisor within that program. The characteristics
you should consider are 1) some activity in areas that you are
interested in and 2) the type of jobs that graduates manage within 3
years of graduation. Post docs are reasonable but in 3 years graduates
should be settled in their first steady appointment academic or not.