For the most part, a PhD in architecture will do nothing for you in professional practice. In some cases, it may even work against you. The only way that I can see it being beneficial for professional practice (at least in the states) is if you study a very specialized technical subject (i.e. simulation of building performance, building optimization, etc.) A traditional history/theory PhD (which is what I'm doing) is going to keep you out of professional practice for 3-4 years at a minimum, so you'll be out of practice and behind on the most recent versions of software.

All of that being said, it will definitely give you a leg up on getting academic jobs.

In terms of what the best schools are, that really depends on what you want to specialize in. It is really more about finding 1-2 key faculty members that you want to work with. Overall, the most well respected programs (at least in my experience and opinion) are, in no particular order:

Princeton
Harvard
Penn (Where I'm at. Feel free to email me for more specific info.)
Columbia
MIT
Michigan
and maybe a few more

Also, Yale has just started a PhD program in the last few years.

BTW, if you do a search for PhD in the forum, you'll find a few more threads on similar topics.

Thanks for the feedback Phillip!

I would also add U.Va and Texas to that list :)

How about VTech, or Berkley, or Cornell?

Great PhD thread from a few years back:
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=52827_100_42_0

One of my favorite professors said that after finishing his PhD at MIT he would sometimes leave it off of his resume when applying to architecture firms.

Not sure if he was serious, but we spoke about the PhD path a lot, and he would often say that you should do a PhD only if there is a specific question relating to architecture that you feel like you HAVE to answer. I personally don’t think that this is the ONLY reason someone should pursue a PhD, but it’s a good place to start.

I’ve always heard you should pick the faculty you want to work with, not necessarily a specific school. I’m curious what others think about this.

I echo Phillip's sage advice, Dallas. I did a PhD in a related field, and while rewarding beyond measure, it definitely put me behind in practice.

I counsel those considering the doctorate to pursue it ONLY if it's the only way to do what you want to do. Otherwise, a second master's in a related field is the better academic path.

Good luck!

i can see a phd in medicine, but in design i think it's not worth it. if you are a well rounded person with a nice portfolio and have a masters, i think that should be enough to teach and be respected.

And, yes, good relationships built with a few key faculty are at least as important as the institution's name on the diploma.

for me it was building a relationship with one faculty member that led to it

and it was to pursue a very technical question that was not possible to approach properly from practice

and i do feel pressure, not to hide the fact that i'm doing this, but to be able to argue to future employers that they should not be weary of me, as i have been told to my face by potential employers

to hedge against future concerns, i am doing what amounts to lots of very small free lance work for the researchers and institute where i work and am trying to spin that into real freelance work so that when i get out and go after jobs again, i can show my sustained ability to design, to manage design work, and to be profitable while also engaged in research

lastly, i also try to keep up as best i can with the trends in CAD, code, sustainability, etc --- it is very difficult to balance it all --- but completely worth it ---

phd is definitely not useful in practice if looking for a job.

it is useful as enrichment of practice. my phd was in urban planning theory and opened up broad range of work that i was not able to do before with just m.arch and a license.

my path was different because i opened an office in last years of phd and never spent anytime out of practice. if i had not done that it would not have been a good thing, since i finished school just in time for the economy to make life difficult.

i was however able to find a low paying teaching job at a very good university, and have been offered teaching positions at other universities, which has been a very good thing. knowing there are other opportunities than working in an office is comforting in a way.

not sure if i would recommend it or not. for me was great. in general what philip and citizen have to say about the topic always makes me think they have the clearest and most useful point of view of all.

The suggestion to seek out a relationship with faculty built on common research interests is a sound one. But it is also something that cannot be know with any certainty from the start. Apart from that rare few instances where the faculty can immediately ascertain what the student would like to do and the student is sufficiently well-informed and clear on his research statement, it is nearly impossible to tell if any relationship can be built at all based on common research interests.

Usually, it takes time and many accidental discoveries to find common and emerging interests and to build upon these interests.

I am not sure of what to add beyond this. All the schools mentioned are good and reputable schools. But I suppose if one is doing a PhD, it is very important to know ahead of time what one's 'minor' is (most PhDs in Architecture are required to hold at least one minor field beyond the major of architecture). This minor is likely made-up but nonetheless will depend on one or two major disciplines out there (e.g. sociology, anthropology, psychology, urban economics, planning, etc).

And so if you know what your minor would be ahead of time--or at least a scanty idea at best--you will have an easier time knowing what program to apply and your application statement will be stronger than others anyway. Folks reading these statements like to see new research connections, especially within the same university that they have not yet anticipated before. If you are able to build these bridges between faculty--which is a better advice than just finding common interest--your chances for funding becomes stronger for all sorts of reasons.

Finally, beyond interests and faculty, make sure you discover how funding works for you. If no funding is available, which tends to be the norm in architecture, then at least try to find out if there are sufficient teaching posts to support you financially.

Except for a few research topics (e.g., technology, structures, sustainable buildings, etc.), the PhD is not going to help you in practice, and as someone said, it may even retard your own career development. So do consider this aspect. But if you are idealistic, and if you are financially comfortable to take some risks, and finally, if you truly enjoy reading and writing (lots and lots; average love does not cut it), then you will really enjoy the experience. We will save stories of the departmental politics for later :).

I just want to put an emphasis on the fact that a Ph.D works against anyone in any field as far as working in the industry goes. My father has a Ph.D in electrical engineering, he says that no one would hire him, even if he were a great engineer- simply because his credentials are too high. Employers are intimidated by high academics, and hiring someone below your position with higher credentials just doesn't sit right with anyone.

If you enjoy research and schooling, getting a Ph.D is certainly something you want to do. Just think of it, if you achieve a spot in a university to do work on your Ph.D, you are pretty well set on becoming a professor. Working in the public sector is far easier than working in the private sector.

I wish you were right about the academic (rather than "public") job sector, Voltaire. It may have been much more certain once upon a time, but it is not that way now. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a bunch of PhDs looking for teaching jobs right now. And forget tenure-track positions. Those are rarest of the rare at the moment.

I also agree that the PhD can work against you in the marketplace for jobs with firms. I haven't taken mine off the CV yet, but I don't mention any of my work that might scare off a potential firm.

I recently worked w/ an architect at a firm, in his mid-40s, with a PhD. He seemed pretty integrated into the firm culture. He wasn't a principal, but was the project manager of the job. I think it depends on the firm; it seemed like he was really happy there and got along w/ the principals fine. The key is in personalities matching up I think.

Like citizen said, just because you "get a spot" to do a Ph.D definitely does set you on your way to become a professor. The days of easy-to-find cushy academic jobs ended 10-20-30 years ago depending on your profession.

my wife read somewhere, perhaps the chronicle, something to the effect of your chances of showing up in hollywood and becoming a star of any order are statistically similar to your chances of getting a tenure track position at a university --- not sure if that refers to research one, tiers one and two, or all, but no matter how you look at it, it is not easy

and without exception, anyone i know under 60 in academia works very long hours --- and many over 60 as well

as tough as my chances in industry may be right now, they are still probably better than going after a tenure track position

Dude, have you been to Hollywood? As bad as it is in academia, I really have trouble believing that. There's a million douchebags running around here and only a couple hundred "stars." I suppose it depends on how you define a "star" though. Statistics...

yeah, i don't know, but if the article was referring to elite and true research universities, i would not be surprised if the statistics were similar

as a supporting anecdote...

last year a friend of mine applied for a position at a borderline tier two/tier three school for a tenure track position

in an email sent out to all applicants, instead of emailing the group, the email went out inadvertently listing all of the people who had applied for the position --- it was literally hundreds of applicants for one position at a borderline tier two/tier three school

and the applicants included people from all of the major elite universities

given that, i can't imagine the competition at major institutions

I guess LA just concentrates everyone in one place vs. having people dispersed all over the world. You think about the number of new PhD grads coming out every year vs. the shrinking amount of jobs and it's probable.
That being said, an acting gig to do one commercial can draw 1000s of applicants. It's an interesting, strange comparison. People who (generally) have a lot of talant and years put into a subject, vs. a mob of people who don't have much of a clue of what's going on. Actually, really depressing to think about.

Lots of great feedback here. From my experience, friends who decided to go into PhD loved architecture, reading architecture, thinking architecture, but couldn't design their way out of a cardboard box, and generally felt lost in a profession that requires a huge time commitment to mindless, repetitive tasks.

Completing a PhD can take your career into many unplanned directions. Topic of your PhD will be of great importance. Becoming a one of a kind expert (the whole point of PhD) can make you a hot commodity if your expertise is highly relevant.

For instance, there are hundreds of tech upstarts around the country developing new energy technologies. It's only a matter of time before they become mature enough to be incorporated into building systems. The scope and funding is huge, and transition to architectural applications is open wide! Your PhD in Architecture may be much better respected outside of the immediate construction field.

On the other hand, a PhD in urban planning may not be as useful in the professional side of any field. Yes, this is a better way to arrange a city, and yes, there are thousands of precedents of what not to do, but economic realities will all but guarantee a less desirable approach and outcome most of the time.

actually, i'd disagree with that... a phd in planning would be much more helpful in professional practice than a phd in architecture... a lot of the people who run municipal planning departments have phds...

Thanks, Phillip, for validating all my years in grad school ;-)

It's also true that a doctorate in planning or the social sciences can open up doors to policy institutes (think tanks) as well. Again, this ain't design/firm work, but one more career path.

@Phillip: I'll take my words back then :) PhD in Urban Planning has been a very valid career path for careers in municipal paperpushing.

The fact that the results (or the lack-thereof) of municipal planning departments are lackluster at best (across the entire nation) speak volumes of frustrations and self-interests one will have to deal with in such profession.

@dallasarchitect: If you do get a PhD in Urban Planning, make sure you minor in Suburban Planning. That way a road to disappointment will at least be a confusing one!

Thank you for all of your feedback! It's really helpful

So...

Sounds like to me that i want to remain an architect, but bump up my knowledge level that an M.Arch II or III or whatever - one beyond the basic M.Arch degree is the way to go.

Sounds like if I want to be a professor, the advice is to go forward with the Ph.D.

If I want to continue to do both, sounds like I may be screwed - or at the very least need to "dumb down" my credentials.



So is it possible to be a well-respected professor, do you think, with only additional M.Arch degrees rather than a Ph.D.? That way I wouldn't suffer the stigma of the Ph.D. in practice and yet would be better educated than most in my field.

Any thoughts?

I think respectability of a professor does not come solely from the degrees this professor has accrued, but rather, by what this professor has contributed and can contribute in the future. In addition, respectability also comes through how this professor is able to settle intellectual and personal disputes within his or her field and department. In other words, what this professor is as an intellectual individual is much more important than his academic qualifications.

Now then, comes the question of to what extent a professor can do that without a PhD and/or a M.Arch, etc. In this day, simply by the customs of the university, increasingly there are fewer non-PhDs in every department. So you are less likely to be considered for a permanent position as a faculty without a PhD, simply because of an organizational gatekeeping effect. Hence if you want to be a professor, you have got to take some risks (get a PhD).

Being better educated is I think, a question and a challenge that one can overcome with some personal efforts and curiosity--and tenacity. Again, I don't think this is dependent on how many degrees one have. I have met people with multiple degrees who continue to make very uneducated statements. Conversely I have met people with only a B.Arch who makes very educated statements--statements that let you go thinking and thinking. By saying this I do not hold onto an anti-intellectual position. Instead, I think if you have been sufficiently curious, you would have read and thought alot more than the average folks; and if you have done so, you would be somewhat more confident to go beyond academic qualifications to be an informed person; and from there, to an intellectual who is able to assess and access many things with only a basic set of mental toolkit.

On the idea of stigma that came up again and again, I think it is important to recognize this challenge, but not to let this challenge muck up your deliberations on whether to take on a PhD or not. One does not consider not buying a car because there is always a chance of a motor accident happening. Similarly, the idea of a stigma may or may not happen to you. To base your decision on a probable idea--especially a life changing one like a PhD--is a practical rule of thumb, but it is however still unwise.

No offense dallasarchitect, but if you want to seriously consider life in academic circles, you have to tighten up on your writing skills. Your last post was sloppy at best...

See StationeryMed's post above. Now that's what a PhD victim sounds like! He probably wrote the whole post in less than 60 seconds.

Ask yourself where do you see yourself 5, 10, 20 years from now, and then work backwards...

No offense dallasarchitect, but if you want to seriously consider life in academic circles, you have to tighten up on your writing skills. Your last post was sloppy at best...

See StationeryMed's post above. Now that's what a PhD victim sounds like! He probably wrote the whole post in less than 60 seconds.

Ask yourself where do you see yourself 5, 10, 20 years from now, and then work backwards...

Steelstuds -

I am writing a post on the internet, I'm not writing a dissertation.

it depends what you want to do, as well...if your interest is theory, then the benefit of a program with a focus in that area is access to specific people and their methods/guidance --- but arguably, you could develop without formal education in this area if you read extensively, go to conferences, perhaps move to a city where you can regularly interact and attend events with the sort of people with whom you would like to speak

if you want to do something that requires resources and access to specialized technical knowledge, that is, if you need a lab, access to engineers and scientists and funds, then it may not be feasible to recreate that without undertaking a formal education

also, if the intent is as a way to differentiate yourself professionally or increase your options, there are probably more cost-effective and time-efficient ways to do that

but if it is a means to address questions dear to you, if it lets you address what drives you, what keeps you up at night, it can be a precious opportunity

----

i'll say this, with regard to the whole stigma issue, it is amusing to me, even though it can potentially impact me in a negative way --- but i worked several places on the east coast as i bounced around in my 20's --- in each place, i did well in professional work, earned responsibility, increased my salary, etc --- in each place, b/c i tried working in different types of firms, my responsibilities were different --- and my employers and co-workers only ever saw a little bit of me, of my interests, of who i am personally and even of who i am as a designer/manager --- but i usually delivered, and people seemed happy --- so the idea that me choosing to return to school somehow changes all of that, that now it can be questioned whether i'm really fit for professional practice, whether i can be efficient, whether i can be quick --- whether i relate --- it is really absurd --- what changed? ---

i don't believe there is a stigma. i can name several architects with phds, including my own advisor for phd who is a minor starchitect here in japan. not only japan, there are architects with phds working in europe that i know personally, and it isn't an issue. some of them are specialist engineer types, others are planners, and some are just reglar architects but with phd in their pocket.

if you got the goods nobody gonna dock you for being educated, not even in america where the caricature is about hating people who can spell and do the grammar thing.

of course if you don't have something to show that is out of the ordinary then i guess the whole phd thing would be a waste of time. i guess the point is that if you do a phd you better do something worth the effort and not just work to get the paper.

This has been said before, but I only reiterate that you have decide *which* kind of architecture PhD you are interested in. I am about to enter my fourth year of PhD study in a program that is history/theory-oriented. These types of programs are geared more towards scholarly research and seminar/survey instruction than professional practice. However, there have been graduates from similar PhD programs as mine who have gone on to do curatorial and institutional work (which are professional practices, in a certain sense). Recall that a architecture history/theory PhD is basically a kind of intense humanities-rooted training. I can speak from experience: the bulk of my courses have been methods- and historiography-oriented courses in history, history of science, history of art, and of course, architecture history. None of this helps me be a better designer. It helps me to communicate discursively with the profession, but then again, I am not an architect. I consider myself a historian.

Those out there who are more inclined towards a PhD or other doctoral degree that is practice-oriented would be best served considering one of two general options. First, there are the practice-oriented doctoral degrees, such as the D.Des at Harvard's GSD, the Building Technology (or Computation) PhD at MIT, Michigan and other schools, and even Michigan's Design Studies PhD. And second, there are a variety of postgrad fellowships offered at SUNY Buffalo, Rice, Michigan that accommodate designers who are about to embark on careers in academia.

This has been said many times, but I only repeat because this is important: if you want to pursue an advanced architecture degree for the sake of qualifying you to be a better or more innovative studio instructor, a two-year history/theory degree or a fellowship is the better option.

PhD work can be an intense, solitary endeavor that operates on delayed gratification and at its worst, on diminishing returns. If you understand these risks, then by all means go do a PhD.

The second masters in an allied field (landscape, history/theory, planning, business, construction management, fine arts, etcetera) is, I think, the way to go for most folks wanting to 1) broaden their horizons and 2) pump up their CV for the job hunt, be it for (adjunct) teaching or practice. All in two short years.

The PhD is normally four years minimum, and often up to six (or more!) once the dissertation is finally done. Plus, there's evidence that up to HALF of those who begin don't ever finish the degree. Half! Plus, there are all the financial considerations in that 4-6 years.

Again: second masters.

It's been really interesting to read people's experiences pursuing PhD's.

There are a number of interesting post-professional master's programs out there. Most are only one year. If you get really hooked on a particular issue then you might pursue a PhD.

Having a clear idea about what you want to focus before you start may help keep it down to 3-4 years. Many PhD's in Europe for example have no required classes, and you apply proposal in hand.

citizen,

you said "I counsel those considering the doctorate to pursue it ONLY if it's the only way to do what you want to do. Otherwise, a second master's in a related field is the better academic path."

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "related field"?... Like engineering? Master of Science in Arch? Building Construction?

I am very interested in keeping all options open for teaching in the future... That being said, I have been considering applying to a M of Science program at a couple elite universities.

I have always heard that going Ivy League will greatly increase your chances of becoming a teacher... Is this the case with a MS? I am trying to figure the best academic combination to marry my interest in Architecture with my desire to explore and test materials, while marketing myself to academia.

Tuna,

I elaborated on the list in my last post, which must've overlapped with yours. My major point is about time, resources, and focus, in comparing a second masters with a doctorate for people wanting more education.

Your interest in the study of materials is a great example. What's the best degree? I don't know, because that's not my subfield. Ask around. Read up. Your ideas (engineering, MS Arch) sound like a very good start. Chances are, it will depend upon particular schools/programs. UCLA used to have a specialty MA in building materials study, but that's gone, I believe.

As for Ivy envy, who knows? This is a big topic, one I'm not interested in. I know that some people on academic hiring committees will probably drool over an Ivy grad, yes. But, look at the faculty rosters of architecture departments: while some have degrees from an Ivy, many more don't.

"while some have degrees from an Ivy, many more don't"

really?

Almost every single professor where i went to school had some ivy league (or close to it) credential after their name.

http://www.wit.edu/arch/wit_web_site/faculty_staff.html

Not like this was a bad thing, i couldn't have asked for better instructors, it just always left me with the impression that the easiest path toward teaching was through an ivy league degree.

Um, yes, Books, really.

I'm speaking generally about architecture schools in the US, not only the single one that you went to.

When you've been though the multiple dozens of architecture schools' faculty rosters for schools nationally, let's talk.

I wasn't trying to piss you off with "really?" sorry if i did.

Most of the 1/2 of a dozen (not many) schools that i've had experience with have been the same. I'm sure its not the norm nation-wide, but this is my experience so far. Just giving my opinion.

I'm sorry to jump on you, Books.

My crankiness stems from what I perceive to be the widespread, obsequious worship of Ivy league institutions on Archinect. I shouldn't take it out on you.

The Ivies are wonderful places, I'm sure. Some friends and colleagues I really respect went to Harvard, or Yale, or Cornell, or Penn. And, I'm sure you're right that, in some places, such a sheepskin will definitely put one at the top of the to-hire list. No question.

My testiness comes from the corollary suggesting that all the other institutions are somehow inferior as a result. It's just not true, in general.

Okay, back to my deep breathing exercises...

Frankly my dear, all those ivy league architecture programs are worthless.

@ Displaced, true that... especially on the real-world scenario. No pun intended,but It seems to me that their programs look waayyyy too forward in the future that most would seem to have detached their minds from the urgent problems this world is facing right now.
But again, It really depends on the person's ideals and priorities.

worthless? thats just silly.

worth the cost of tuition? depends on your perspective.


my phd was mostly free, as was the case for most of my friends. we all got scholarships and a living stipend. i am curious, is that not possible in usa?


From the posts here sounds phd in japan is maybe different than in north america. i know qualifications to teach are certainly different. Here there are few profs who are not licensed architects, and a phd is not remotely strange on top of that. Which is i guess the point of going to an ivy school isn't it? To learn from people who are good at crossing both sides of the isle? My school has had 3 pritzker winners on staff over the years and they were not only fantastic at building stuff they could dish the theory too and were surprisingly good teachers. Why is that supposed to be a bad thing?


anyway, for me phd was not history but urbanism, so i was forced to go outside and talk to politicians and practitioners and to residents of communities as part of my research, which was ground heavily in field work. that was the norm at my school and probably why i enjoyed it so much. bookish work was not generally encouraged because the intent was to learn new ways to practice, not new ways to look at what is already known (though that is totally valid).


phd is a long haul but doesn't have to be a time out from practice if you don't want it to be. it doesn't mean you have to teach, nor will it guarantee you a position as a professor somewhere any more than a license will ensure a job as an architect. having both probably makes things easier in terms of having options, but my belief is that it is what you do with the licenses and the degrees that matters. the rest is just prelude.

@jump: Major consideration in good-ole-USA when it comes to education is cost. Education, health care, and real estate costs have doubled/ tripled/ quadrupled in the last 10 years or so. We are facing a major showdown with 'something's-got-to-give'.

Investment in any kind of post graduate degree comes down to affordability. Regardless of scholarship reimbursement, one will face hardship a obtaining a degree that may or may not pay itself back.

in the us, most of the top phd programs (including all of those on my list at the top of this thread) offer significant financial packages... in most cases they include full tuition/fee waivers, health insurance, and a stipend that would be enough to pay the bills if you're single and live frugally... some schools offer this for 3 years, some for more... also, some schools require you to teach in order to get this compensation, some prefer that you concentrate on your studies...

personally, i would not be doing a phd if it wasn't fully funded... essentially i'm getting paid (albeit only a fraction of what i was making before) to go to school... getting a phd is absolutely nothing like getting a masters... as SMcSS alluded to above, it can be a long, brutal, solitary process... as a result, i wouldn't recommend taking on any additional debt to do it...

i'll second phillip's point -- mine is mostly paid for in exchange for research and teaching -- if it were not, i would not have accepted

there were no teaching or research obligations the first year, but there are each year after that

correction, there was no teaching obligation the first year --- there was a research obligation only

This is an interesting thread. I am curious, for those of you who are in Phd programs, is it from the same university where you received your Master's? I am wondering about the possibility of getting advanced standing based on previous coursework that is relevant to the phd topic.

Also, I know people who work full time outside of school while working on dissertation...is this really feasible?

I am becoming more and more interested in getting a phd, but I don't know that I would want to spend as long as 5 years on it, especially without gaining experience in practice during that time.

here at upenn first years are generally not expected to TA or RA so that they can get their feet wet and get to know the faculty... we're required to teach for 1 year (2 semesters) as one of the requirements of the program... some of us also RA in the summer to make a little extra money...

of the people that i know who are done with coursework and have already used up their 3 years of funding some are working full-time in an office (and are finding it difficult to find time to write), some are getting paid to TA/RA at upenn, some have tenure track jobs at other universities, and some (including myself starting this fall) are teaching part time as adjuncts at some of the other architecture schools in philadelphia...

@smarchitect: i subscribe to the line of thought that it is good to get as many different points-of-view as possible, so i always recommend that people get their degrees from different institutions... at least here at penn, you can get advanced standing based on classes taken during your m.arch... if i remember correctly, it is a maximum of 8 transfer credits from a different institution or 12 credits if you did your masters at penn... essentially this shortens the coursework from 3 years (for those with a b.arch or an unrelated masters) to 2 years...

thanks for clarifying philip. that sounds pretty much exactly the same as here then.

my scholarship was enough for a single person to live comfortably if not extravagantly in tokyo for 3 to 5 years (depending on how the program was laid out). for me with 2 kids and a wife not working i had to work to make it possible. So practice and research went side by side. it was not easy but manageable...and my prof helped out by arranging other scholarships and bursaries, and by giving me RA position for a year on top of that...

now i am mostly full time working in (my own) office we decided to continue the pattern and we spend time/money/effort on small research projects as well as design. For us it is really the only way to become better architects and planners. Design and research intertwined. I suppose our research affects our design in many ways, though it doesn't necessarily HAVE to, we don't have that kind of polemic going on. We just think it is important to do both.


anyway, as far as where to go to do phd, best way to decide is not so much the school as the professor. The advanced standing thing is an issue though. Because I am Canadian and did march in canada my university required me to take a year of coursework and not just jump into the research (which is normal way here).

i enjoyed phd, even the very lonely part of writing the dissertation. i would absolutely do it again. I think the point is to do what feels right. Sure phd is not easy but what is?

Hey everyone!

I completed masters in Architecture & Digital Design Systems from the UK recently. I am still very much interested in the 'world of digital architecture' and am very keen on pursuing a phd in the same field. I see that several universities in the USA offer this.

But one thing I am not clear about is the funding/ scholarship/ stipend. Because there is no way I can do a phd without financial help.

Would anyone be able to guide me regarding this? As in - is there any way for me to know if I will get financial support until I actually finish my application process? On what basis does the university decide to give scholarship? Does getting admit into a uni automatically qualify you for scholarship?

Also, I wouldn't really mind doing another masters course in digital design [provided I get scholarship]. Is there such a possibility at all?

Would be very grateful if anyone could help me out!

Thank you!

i haven't re-read this thread, but i believe that we discussed funding up there somewhere... that said, just email or call the phd programs that you're interested in and ask them what sort of funding they provide for their students...