On 5 Dec 2010, at 3:15 pm, Don Norman wrote:
> it takes much longer to get a PhD in the US than in the UK (or at least it used to). 5 - 7 years isnot unusual in the US. Most science and engineering departments in the US accept students immediately for the PhD, but there is a gate at roughly 2 or 3 years at the Qualifying exams, and a number of students leave at that point with a courtesy MS degree.
Don, you highlight very different practices. I have a lot of respect for the PhD in the USA because it has adequate training, and because there seems a generous amount of time - if 'generous' is ever ever the right term for a PhD which can take some a lifetime...
There is a bit of a myth about completion time in the UK. We get funding for 3 years full time study, but the reality is that completion rates, from enrolment to a final thesis submission taking into account the viva and time for corrections, is nearer 4 or 5 years (one student that I inherited took a total of ten years). Sometimes the latter stage goes unfunded and is part time, with all the attendant dangers of non completion. This seems to be one reason why the funding councils are moving towards regionally based doctoral training centres, so that best practice can be shared. There are no regionally based centres in the art and design sector so far as I am aware, but there's a number of universities that have collaborative arrangements where their students get together from time to time, and some have common training sessions.
In the UK the completion rate in the art and design sector looks poor. It is very hard to get accurate data, but again an attempt to extract completion rates from the limited public data that we have, showed possibly only half enrolled students completing within 4-5 years. It would be interesting to see figures for comparable programmes in the USA, perhaps someone on this list can comment?
We sadly often see the MPhil as a consolation award for those not able to progress to PhD. By contrast, a couple of the doctoral training centre schemes that I have seen recently have progression and exit points at certificate, diploma, masters, and MPhil, as well as PhD.
> As for the quality of refereeing in design conferences, I have never been to a DRS conference (even though I am a member of the society)
Well, I've made a note that we must invite invite you next time! I'm sure that I speak for many who greatly enjoyed your participation in IASDR Seoul last year.
> The 33% acceptance rate is still higher than the CHI conference acceptance rate, but a good indicator of quality. And yes, Design Studies is a superb journal (as is the international Journal of Design)
Your comment made me realise that I have little idea of acceptance rates with heavily peer reviewed conferences outside of the art and design sector. It would be interesting to hear from anyone here who is associated with other peer review systems. Some comparisons would be invaluable in setting our own goals.
Regards,
David
.........................................................................
David Durling FDRS PhD http://durling.tel
.........................................................................
|