1) I don't think you should rule out a non-academic career. Your primary disadvantage would be the lack of field experience, but then again, you can count your research experience.

2) Having been part of the education landscape in Malaysia for ages:), a one-month wait is nothing. So many reasons for this: many do not bother to inform candidates unless they've been shortlisted; there may not be any vacancy; posted vacancies may have been up for months (and filled) without being removed; the HR processes leave much to be desired! This is just the reality here. A phone call to the relevant person in the relevant department might be the way to go here...

3) No, Shell is not government service where once you reject the offer, you are deemed ineligible. You can always try.

But, may I also just suggest that you consider an academic career in a foreign university in Malaysia, if you choose to do your PhD. I respect your having second thoughts given your dad's health concerns. Perhaps you may want to look at these foreign universities then for a PhD scholarship?

Hi Sandy90,

First of all thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I really appreciate it. I'll be taking your advice and calling up the colleges first thing tomorrow morning. May I ask another question? Would you know what is the average age for a young lecturer? These days, you have 25 year olds with a PhD so I'm thinking there'll be tough competition.

Also thank you for the suggestion that I look into foreign universities in Malaysia. If it is okay, may I know which ones you might be referring to? I admit I have only taken a look at the Monash University website and unfortunately there aren't any PhD scholarships on offer that is in my field. But I'll keep checking because you never know. I also know of Nottingham University's Malaysian campus...but other than that I admit I don't know much about foreign universities which have set up base in Malaysia (I will need to do my homework on that).

Finally, I'd appreciate any insight or experiences you'd like to share being in the education field (if you're free and have the time).

My plan right now is either to a) accept the scholarship and then return immediately to Malaysia(should I be successful in getting the PhD) or b) forget about the scholarship and just start working. I'm having a headache right now deciding (although I'm aware that having choices is a privilege), so any input from anyone that will help me make a somewhat informed decision will be welcomed.

Once again, thank you!

You're interested. Take the plunge.

Actually a Phd is not essential to join the local academia, provided that your credentials are good. I started at 24 without a Phd. But they will eventually pressure you into doing one.

Depends on your field and institution really.

For example in my field (a biomedical science subfield), with the increasing number of people getting a Cell/Science/Nature paper (or papers in highly rated journals) out of their PhD, it is extremely difficult to survive/find a prominent employer after PhD if you don't have at least a decent publication.

Considering the time and effort required to publish in a highly rated journal, it really makes PhD candidates and post-docs work like hell, at least those working in prestigious institutions that are often also a competitive environment in itself.

I think you are largely right, especially for the scientific scene. For social sciences a Phd is not a must, provided that you have a good master's degree and the ability to publish.

---

Added on May 5, 2012, 10:44 pmIn Malaysia, you must write directly to the head of department. The HR dept consists of a bunch of lazy bumps.

This post has been edited by academiclawyer: May 5 2012, 10:44 PM

Happy day..

We are collecting stories of unfair treatment by Intel Malaysia either towards graduate trainees or permanent workers or green badges or contigent workers to start a class action.

A website will be started soon to highlight commonalities. You may not be alone.

Feel free to email: faceintelmalaysia@gmail.com

you are lawyer? I think for lawyer is easier to be lecturer without phd.. sciencetific will difficult unless u join private which give low pay compare government


wat u mean unfair by intel? Intel is very big company very good pay. Share your story plz

Experience hands down (unless you like doing research or teaching)

yep, experience does make a difference.

Once a reality faced it will eventually be pass down to the intellect-

Someone with both Phd and working experience is surely ahead of the game..like me for e.g

This post has been edited by Ferooze Ali: Jun 10 2012, 07:24 AM

I have gotten a scholarship to study in SG and will depart this august. Thank for your concern. Right now, I'm still working to get enough pocket money for the traveling fees and such.

Just want to summarize/share some opinion of mine:

1) Don't waste time doing PhD if you're aiming for money. In term of cash, experience will be forever on top of PhD.

2) PhD does open more opportunity, but I can't say it is a better one.

3) Only go for PhD, if you have a strong interest in the field you're taking. Also, the mentality to stay 'student' for the next 4 years. Forget about buying assets/marriage in this 4 years period.

4) 4 years commitment is not short, don't start if you're not sure. I don't want you to waste your time+money and stop half way.

5) If you're not sure what you want, opt to work first (you can stop anytime you want) then only decide. Don't go the other way round (PhD need 4 years commitment). Also, by working first, you will cherish your PhD more - provided if you're a research lover.

6) I'd agree with a forumer; PhD does change your lifestyle. At least, you'll be labelled as nerd for another 4 years.

7) Lastly, follow your heart. It can't be wrong.

both are equally important if youre going for the high pay. employers always target those who are both qualified and experienced with attention to experience.

Just some comments:

I still don't understand why people separate "work experience" from "PhD". Judging from the many comments in this thread, I dare say that most people haven't been through the process of obtaining a PhD itself, much less understanding the structure of PhD and what it really is about.

Unless you are doing some highly theoretical stuff that bears no resemblance to the work done in real life, PhD is itself a working experience. In fact, a much more difficult experience since you will ultimately be the one to carry the responsibility for your project and will be contributing actively to generating ideas for the project along with your supervisor, rather than just given a task to perform and following orders from your superior.

To be honest I don't see which transferable skills that could be gained by working outside of academia cannot be obtained through PhD. An ideal PhD experience should be one that "forces" you to learn:
- effective time management (since you'll be handling multiple projects, and will be working longer hours than normal jobs)
- workstyle with enhanced productivity (you'll need to generate the data needed in limited time)
- ability to absorb and analyse large complex sets of data
- critical thinking skills and the ability to synthesise arguments/hypotheses logically
- ability to apply theoretical knowledge and translate them into practical solutions
- ability to research a particular topic efficiently (and that means a lot of reading in a short period of time, usually involving the learned ability to distinguish valuable information from useless crap within a large body of literature)
- oral and written presentation skills
etc. all of which are transferable and applicable to your work and lifestyle.

That is the reason why you'll see PhD holders, in generally, can easily outperform the fresh grads, even though they start out together at the lower ranks. Usually, the PhD holders are better in project management and coordination, and are usually more productive and takes less time to learn new stuffs.

(Of course, individual experience may differ, and may not comply to what I've written. I've seen quite a lot of "bad/incompetent" PhD holders as well. Also, since there are so many "mediocre" universities nowadays producing PhDs that aren't properly trained, compared to a few decades ago where the number of PhD candidates is much less, there have been a rise in the number of PhD holders who just couldn't perform like they should have been. It also depends very much on your supervisor/mentor in training you and preparing you for independence in your later life.)

Most people who didn't proceed to PhD is due to one or more of the following reasons:
1) Simply not interested
2) Failed to obtain a scholarship/sponsorship - grades not competitive enough to secure a scholarship
3) Undecided, like you said because of the commitment

However, beware though by choosing to work first one can find it hard to return to the academia and start their PhD. I have written at length about this before (probably in this thread), but mostly because as you grow older many things start to change in your life - marriage, children, mortgage etc., and it could reach a point where supporting your family and yourself with stipends alone (easily only half as much, or even less than what you would already be earning) is simply not feasible.

Regarding lifestyle: Yes, it does change your lifestyle. In fact, it is a lifestyle by itself. You will sacrifice a lot of your social life, this is very true. But that is also the challenge: to achieve a work-life balance, you will have to learn how to manage your life properly, such that you can both be productive but at the same time still get a decent amount of social life.

And finally, I wouldn't say most people doing PhD are nerds. In fact, those that I've come across just seem like normal people to me.


This post has been edited by tester: Jun 23 2012, 11:03 PM

^ Nerds look like a normal people.

I get the impression that you're talking about physical appearance? If that's the case then no I wasn't referring to that, just that the people I've come across seem to behave just like everyone else.