From: tloh@husc8.harvard.edu (Teck Loh)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean
Subject: Re: US vs British university degree
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:50:29 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <l9no2bINN9ad@nyquist.usc.edu> goh@nyquist.usc.edu (K.C.Goh) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.060234.4707@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>>echong@porpoise.ecn.purdue.edu (Edwin Chong) writes:
>>: In article <l9kvr9INN4n0@nyquist.usc.edu> goh@nyquist.usc.edu (K.C.Goh) writes:
>>: >[comparison of UK and US education deleted]
>>: >
>>: 
>>: A terrific summary.
>>: 
>>: >I've discussed undergraduate degrees. The situation is probably
>>: >not similar for MSc/PhD degrees.
>>: >
>>
>>Unfortunately I do not have any experience with US method of education.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>And it shows.
>In what follows, I will confine myself to discussing some of the
>points made by Encik Ahmad in his posting.  The discussion will be
>limited to what I think are reasonably reputable EE PhD programs in the US.  
>
>>If you are good at passing exams you can do well in US universities. For
>>example there was a Malaysian PSD scholar who graduated with PhD in 5 years
>>after MCE(GCE O level). This is fact, I read in in Malaysian newspaper.
>>	 In UK , no matter how brilliat you are, you can only
>>get it in 6 years, 1 year A level, 3 year BSc, 2 year PhD.
>>	Because you can take exams in USA for your PhD, your research work
>>need not be of greater depth. In UK system, you must do more original unguided
>>work to complete your PhD.
>>	A colleague of mine who got his PhD from USA commented that, in USA
>>ordinary student can get PhD because he is guided whereas he may fail in a 
>>UK system because he is unguided.
>>
>
>Fact: 	
>One usually takes at least three to four years after the
>MSc to graduate with a PhD in the US.  Can Edwin confirm that this is also
>the case in Purdue?  How about the people in MIT?
>

I watched C-span the other day where an author of a book (title: .....of the 
temple?) was interviewed about the college education in US.  He mentioned
that the average time for a student to obtain a PhD degree in US is 10.5 years.
For women, it is 12.5 years and for African-American is 15 years. I think the 
length of the PhD programme depends on the field, university and/or professor.
I did my bachelor and master degree in Japan majoring in chemical Engineering.
But, in Harvard I have switched to chemistry for my PhD studies. In Harvard,
the average time to obtain a PhD in chemistry is 6 years.

>Fact:  
>The PhD course is usually regarded as training to do independent creative
>academic research and the ability to do well in exams is usually regarded
>to be irrelevant, although there is obvious correlation between the
>ability to do research and the ability to do well in exams.
>The students are expected to demonstrate their ability to do research by
>presenting their work in conferences and journals.
>
>Fact:
>A typical PhD course in the US includes about 1/3 cousework which
>provides the basics for the 2/3 independent research leading up to
>a dissertation.  For a EE Systems type PhDs the cousework usually 
>and necessarily include Masters level Mathematics courses, eg Real 
>Analysis and Operator Theory.  Personally speaking, I find that 
>advanced courses are a tremendous help for getting one up to the 
>standard required to make real contributions to the latest research.
>

In Chemistry, we are required to teach three semesters, take 12 courses ,
passed a German language exam and passed 8 cummulative exams before you can
submit for thesis defence.  The cummulative exams here are rather strange that
the students are not informed who is the professor that is giving the exam. The
exam usually covers recent topics from research Journals ranging from
biochemistry  to theoritical chemistry. There are more than 20 chemistry 
Journals that appear monthly. They just want to make the students life
miserable :>
 
>Fact:
>All PhD students are guided.  It is extremely unlikely that a person with
>no guidance can get a PhD.  The level of guidance may of course differ.
>
>>: Virtually all PhD programs in the US require students to pass a
>>: "qualifying exam". This is a comprehensive exam on the student's area
>>: of specialization, typically at an advanced level. Preparation for
>>: this exam is usually much more intensive than any undergraduate exam.
>>
>>Those who graduate from UK system like Hong Kong can score A easily in these
>>courses.
>

All phD students are guided to a various extend. Some professor may just tell
you that " it will be interesting if you can obtain this". The student will
then have to struggle how to obtain the result. This is expecially true in
theoretical science. Athough, I am not from theoretical science, I know a
friend who struggle badly to obtain the result. In this case, I would rather 
say that the guidance provided by the professor is virtually nothing. 
	
>Personal opinion:
>This is totally incorrect and in fact absurd.
>
>>This explains why UK trained professionals tend to develop original ideas and
>>are in great demand even in USA, at least the better ones. This is called
>>brain drain from UK and Europe.
>
>Personal opinion:
>The people from UK, Europe, India, Far East, Latin America etc. come to US
>because that's where the state of the art research and funding is found.
>Have a look at the IEEE Transactions.
>
>>many years. From Cambridge University, 90% got 1st class.
>
>Fact:
>The typical breakdown in EE in Cambridge is aprroximately
>25% 1st Class Honours.  The proportion is usually much lower for other
>departments.
>
>Regards,
>
>K.C. Goh

 I know very little about the education in UK. I only know that their PhD
programme in chemistry is 3 years, in Japan, it is 5~6 years (2 years of master
and another 3~4 years for PhD). It is very difficult to say which place is better. It really depends on the field and the advisor. For chemistry, I would say
that US is the best follow by Japan and Germany, then UK as far as research is
concerned.  UK was better until Margaret Thather(sp?) cut funding in research.
Believe it or not, Margaret Thather was a chemist.

T-P Loh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean