Funded PhD in Mechanical Engineering: Yes or No 5

[ResearchGuy53]

I went to get my MS degree in mechanical engineering from a top 10 engineering program (in the USA). I was funded as a researcher for the degree. I was offered funding for stick around for the PhD (it would be about 2 more years). I'm unsure about a PhD in Engineering though. I have heard some negative things about it. If you could answer ANY of the questions below, that would be awesome

1) Does it make financial sense to get a (fully funded) PhD in Engineering?
2) Can you still work as a design engineer after receiving a PhD, or are you limited to research? I feel design in general is more lucrative than research...
3) If you were in my position (see above introduction), would you get a PhD, or leave with the MS and enter industry?
4) Do you or your colleagues have a doctorate (in engineering)? Has it worked to your/their benefit? Or was it a waste of time?
5) Are a BS/MS degrees enough to be competitive, for young people with less experience such as myself?

Another thought of mine is that a funded PhD in a technology field seems like a real bargain, when compared to an MD in which you put yourself into deep debt and do not see much payoff until after your residency. From this perspective, the PhD seems like a fantastic idea. Either way, do you recommend the PhD in Engineering?

 

[Ron]

A PhD in Engineering is useful for academia....not so much otherwise, unless the company is fully research oriented. I know of some PhD engineers in consulting who actually do not advertise their PhD.... as they consider it a detriment in some instances.

Conversely, if funded, go for it. You can always decide later whether to publicize the degree or not, depending on the "audience". A PhD doesn't make you any less capable or useful, it just sometimes carries a stigma in general practice that says "give me the project...I'll research the hell out of it and charge you for it, whether it solves your problem or not"......in short, the perception of some clients will be that you will spend all their budget trying to find the answer when you should already know it.

 

[GHartmann]

There are a number of factors to consider, the main one being what do you see yourself doing?

Something like computational fluid dynamics and related might benefit from a PHD.

Calculating the fluid flow in pipelines and systems could be done by a BS.

If you are researching something you are really interested I don't see the downside.

 

[FeX32]

It is for sure worth it.
I have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and I work in industry doing engineering design and research.
I find that a lot of places respect you more and allow for more freedom. Of course, there is also more pressure in some aspects.

 

[FeX32]

Also, 2 years is quite short. It is usually 3-5 years. If you can get it in 2, that is a big bonus too.

 

[rotw]

My goal is to learn how to deal with administrative boring tasks, conflictual views, bosses micromanaging you, incompetence, job insecurity, paperwork, unfriendly colleagues, anyhow long list... point is I want to reach the wisdom and the insight of some of the Senior guys contributing in this forum, without naming them. They are role models to me...so I am not sure I would go for a PhD; as you can see the answer depends upon personal goals...I think there is no standard answer!

"If you want to acquire a knowledge or skill, read a book and practice the skill".

 

[SNORGY]

To me, if you have the intellectual capacity and the interest to pursue a PhD, you owe it to yourself to go for it. Good luck in advance!

 

[FeX32]

administrative boring tasks, conflictual views, bosses micromanaging you, incompetence, job insecurity, paperwork, unfriendly colleagues, anyhow long list..

This has nothing to do with getting a doctorate.

Every engineer (of all educations levels) has to deal with all sorts of things he doesn't necessarily want to deal with. That's life.

SNORGY has is spot on.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Some random views...

1) If you think your increased earning power will pay back your earnings hole, yes. I've not seen that in my business. I worked for several years alongside a former classmate who'd stayed on for a PhD. We got paid abot the same to do very similar work.

2) You don't need to work in research if you have a PhD. We have quite a smattering of PhDs in our dev & testing areas (quite common in the auto business I believe). Not sure about design though.

3) Personally I would not do it. I'd save the PhD option for my mid-life crisis/downsizing lifeboat. It depends on the job market in your field really. A good friend of mine stayed on because he saw a few more years of education better than those years spent idling in temp jobs.

4) I don't, but some of my colleages do. If I'm totally honest, I've not seen any tangible benefits for them. Intangible benefits may have included bubbling to the top of the recruitment pile. Especially if the post was highly focussed.

5) BS/MS would be a base requirement. The school might be a differentiator. A PhD might be able to provide real work experience, if it's that type. Some schools work closely with industry (and governments), especially on pre-competitive research projects.

- Steve

 

[rotw]

For me it has to do. A lot.

Dealing with that sort of "real life" things is not something you develop by typically going for Phd and these are not things that do require sharp academic qualifications, it is more a profile that you build doing the real job - sometimes dealing with very stupid problems like fixing yourself a printer or spending hours to book a hotel for a client due to short notice in a peak time period!

Not to say PhDs are not capable to develop those skills, but from experience Inoticed myself that these qualities are more often found in engineers having only BSc or even no degree at all. I knew people who started at the shop with no academic degrees at hand, after 30 years of working experience they became the technical guru of the division equipped with a rare wisdom - even a Phd from the best program ever will never get you there, I think. But that is a matter of personal appreciation. Having said that I personaly found that MSc is good investment and is sort of good balance.

There are some countries where it is kind of normative that a Phd is required to occupy a role as "technical authority" in a company; fair nough, that is different thing and I do respect.

"If you want to acquire a knowledge or skill, read a book and practice the skill".

 

[Maui]

I graduated with my Ph.D. in Materials Science in 1992. Through 2014 I worked as a metallurgist in a variety of industries including academic, nuclear, consulting, manufacturing, and specialty steel production. For a period of ten years within that time frame I worked at Crucible Materials Corporation as a Senior Metallurgist, and worked concurrently as an adjunct Assistant Professor in Engineering at Syracuse University.

The PhD can prove useful in industrial research jobs and tenure-track academic positions. If your goal is to obtain an industrial engineering position, my own experience suggests that the PhD will close more doors for you than it will open. You will hear the phrase, "You're overqualified" more often than not. The pay that you receive will not be substantially greater than the pay earned by someone with an MS degree in the same discipline. And you may unknowingly inspire a sense of jealousy in your less secure co-workers who do not have an advanced degree. If your goal is simply to work in an industrial engineering position that does not involve research, then obtaining the PhD will serve no useful purpose, and will likely make your job search and work life much more difficult. The MS degree will result in a greater career benefit to you for the effort required to earn it.

What I find that surprises many people about having a Ph.D. is that employers are reluctant to hire you unless they absolutely need someone with your particular skill set. There are several downsides that a potential employer sees in hiring a PhD when they could just as easily hire a BS or MS candidate. They fear that you will become bored and seek employment elsewhere as soon as a better job comes along. Then they will have to go through the hiring process all over again. Why should they put themselves through that when they can simply pay someone who is not overqualified less money to do the same job? And the lesser qualified candidate will probably be less likely to jump ship as quickly. There is a general perception that PhDs are over-educated individuals who lack practical hands-on experience and common skill sets. This perception has been clearly expressed in the responses that have been posted to the original question in this thread. This perception is, at least in my particular case and those of my fellow PhDs, untrue.

Other factors also come into play when they do in fact need to hire a PhD. The applicant’s ethnicity presents an even more difficult problem for employers than usual because most Ph.D.'s that are currently employed in the United States are caucasian men. The federally mandated affirmative action guidelines that employers are required to adhere to stipulate that not only must each company hire a sufficiently diversified workforce, but the employees at each level in that company must also show evidence of this diversity. I myself have been denied the opportunity to interview at more than one company/academic institution because I am not a minority. A friend of mine who formerly worked for a major aluminum manufacturer told me precisely that when he explained to me why I would not be interviewed for the job that he originally encouraged me to apply for. If you look in the job postings for academic positions in the ASME publication Mechanical Engineering, for example, many of the ads contain a phrase at the end of the job posting that are similar to the following, “The University of ________ is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Women and minorities are strongly encouraged to apply.” If you’re a white American male, that statement tells you that your ethnic background and gender are inconsistent with the job description, even though they have no bearing on your ability to do the work. If you had planned on getting a research position in an academic setting, you likely would have run into that problem. This is one of the reasons why many of the college professors that are currently employed in these academic institutions are foreign born. The odd part is that many of the foreign-born students who win fellowships to come here to study for their PhD (which you and I pay for with our tax dollars) are typically hired much more quickly by US companies than US citizens for the same reason, provided they have the paperwork to remain here. It's a good deal for them, and can leave a bad taste in the mouth of Americans like myself. Most people who have not been through this may find it difficult to comprehend. Our own system discourages Americans from earning a PhD. If you look at any engineering PhD program in the US, the vast majority of the students in that program are probably not Americans. It should not be this way, but I see no motivation for this to change anytime in the near future.


Maui

 

[rotw]

Maui,

As someone already said, there is an easy way for not appearing overqualified : Delete the sentence that refers to the PhD from you resume. Leave the BSc and MSc. Then you get a question at the interview : what have you done during these four years...I see some gap here - where have you been? You better have a good story...



"If you want to acquire a knowledge or skill, read a book and practice the skill".

 

[wroggent]

But if he has to do that then he has wasted his time getting the PhD.

 

[priyam07]

Hi, as SNORGY said it depends on what you want and of course with PhD more doors will close than it can open (maui). If you are interested in a lucrative offer I would say stick with MS. PhD would be interesting and may be even post doc after all only if you are interested in academics and research. I am staying away from maui's comments on why there are more minorities in PhD, may be all engineers are finding what they are interested in with just BS or MS and don't see motivation to do a PhD?

 

[FeX32]

These threads on grad school always split people into 2 categories. These categories are usually evident based on their personal physiological bias.

Look for the posts that don't have this bias and you will have your answer. (Maui, Steve, Snorgy)

 

[KENAT]

Mostly basing my answers on my current job at a scientific instruments company - same may not have been true at former employer in Aero/defense field.

1) Does it make financial sense to get a (fully funded) PhD in Engineering?
- Maybe. You'll potentially lose ~2 years of earning an engineers salary to complete the doctorate. When you do graduate will you get paid more/have less chance of unemployment/longer career... to make up for it?
2) Can you still work as a design engineer after receiving a PhD, or are you limited to research? I feel design in general is more lucrative than research...
- Many of my colleagues in the design dept have PhD, although so do many in marketing, applications engineering, test engineering, service & senior management.
3) If you were in my position (see above introduction), would you get a PhD, or leave with the MS and enter industry?
-
4) Do you or your colleagues have a doctorate (in engineering)? Has it worked to your/their benefit? Or was it a waste of time?
- I don't but my colleagues do. Some of my sharpest colleagues don't have Phd, some of them do. Some not great colleagues do have Phd. In at least some cases it seems (as I've said before likely to FeX32 annoyance) the PhD just seems to indicate their willingness/ability to hang out at uni for a few more years rather than increased inherent intelligence or ability. While having the Phd may help get in the door, once through the door it doesn't necessarily imply higher earning potential from what I can tell here.
5) Are a BS/MS degrees enough to be competitive, for young people with less experience such as myself?
- In terms of ability to do the job I'd say so. At my employer though it seems like most new technical hires have a PhD - not that they necessarily make use of it but for various reasons (often relating to having some previous familiarity with the type of work we do) it seems to have become the bar for entry.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[77JQX]

I think the PhD can help if you want to start your own business, either in consulting or manufacturing. The same people who wouldn't want a PhD on their payroll seem to want hire (or invest in) PhDs for contract work. And while pursuing the PhD you can make contacts that would be difficult to make any other way.