This is an important question with more than one answer.

Traditionally, individual Ph.D. studies are the norm. This means that a Ph.D. student has the opportunity to work over a number of years on a single problem with all of its nuances. Typically, the supervisor for such a Ph.D. student is an experienced researcher, i.e., someone who has obtained results in solving one or more problems in a particular research area. That supervisor serves as a mentor, guide and critic of the work by a Ph.D. student. Two important features of individual Ph.D. studies are duration and experience in responding to reviewers of proposed solutions of a problem.

Duration: Typically, such a Ph.D. student works in a particular research area for a number of years. It is the duration of individual Ph.D. studies that makes it very attractive, since ample time is provided to arrive at new results related to a research problem.

Responding to reviewers: There are three main sources of reviewers of a Ph.D. student's work, namely, the Ph.D. supervisor, members of Ph.D. student's advisory committee and external reviewers. Of those three sources reviews, external reviewers provide an objective evaluation as well as an indication of acceptance or rejection of proposed problem solutions.

The important thing to realize here is the very important opportunity a Ph.D. student has to work with a supervisor in responding to external reviewers. The responses to external reviewers usually involves course corrections, improved finely-tuned results and improved, clarified presentation of results.

More to the point, in the absence of a single supervisor for a Ph.D. student, the potential for misunderstandings concerning research direction and a lack of focus concerning the problem given to a student make structured Ph.D. studies rather un-appealing.

This is an important question with more than one answer.

Traditionally, individual Ph.D. studies are the norm. This means that a Ph.D. student has the opportunity to work over a number of years on a single problem with all of its nuances. Typically, the supervisor for such a Ph.D. student is an experienced researcher, i.e., someone who has obtained results in solving one or more problems in a particular research area. That supervisor serves as a mentor, guide and critic of the work by a Ph.D. student. Two important features of individual Ph.D. studies are duration and experience in responding to reviewers of proposed solutions of a problem.

Duration: Typically, such a Ph.D. student works in a particular research area for a number of years. It is the duration of individual Ph.D. studies that makes it very attractive, since ample time is provided to arrive at new results related to a research problem.

Responding to reviewers: There are three main sources of reviewers of a Ph.D. student's work, namely, the Ph.D. supervisor, members of Ph.D. student's advisory committee and external reviewers. Of those three sources reviews, external reviewers provide an objective evaluation as well as an indication of acceptance or rejection of proposed problem solutions.

The important thing to realize here is the very important opportunity a Ph.D. student has to work with a supervisor in responding to external reviewers. The responses to external reviewers usually involves course corrections, improved finely-tuned results and improved, clarified presentation of results.

More to the point, in the absence of a single supervisor for a Ph.D. student, the potential for misunderstandings concerning research direction and a lack of focus concerning the problem given to a student make structured Ph.D. studies rather un-appealing.

I would recommend the classic way for supervision the answer in your question "Also, after finishing a doctoral degree will there be any difference between the one who took individual route and structured route, particularly when career is in question?

There is some suspicion from you toward the first one? so go with the second one!

Best regards

Aly R Abdel-Moemin

Individual Ph.D - It is a classic path to gain a Ph.D

Structured PhD - It is a programme in which main area of research are defined in a well mannered

Depends upon the situation of a member one will choose - either to prefer 1 or 2

avail the opportunity, individual or structured PhD, which comes first

Dr. James, thank you for your answer it is really helpful!

In mid-career I returned to college and chose a structured PhD program with a graduate committee of three principal supervisors and two moderators. It is risky to depend on a single supervisor who might have an accident, become ill, fall out of favor, retire, take a sabbatical, or find a better job at a different university.

Two acquaintances didn’t complete the PhD programs that they attempted with a single supervisor. One department was merged causing the supervisor to depart and leaving an indifferent faculty. The other person attempted twice to earn the PhD in situations where each time the supervisor was not tenured, and found a better job elsewhere. Neither of them have a PhD now.

Many famous scientists have earned the PhD under just one supervisor, and many famous scientists have been the one supervisor for PhD candidates. For younger people it might be a better choice if the supervisor is very good.

The PhD degree conferred by one PhD is as valid as the PhD conferred by a committee. In mid-career I was accepted by two different universities. One program was structured and the other was not. I chose the program that appeared to be best for my situation.

I think universities to collaborate with industry in research works to the possible extent. PhD primarily creates ability to do research. Individual guides are able to make a student competent to do research, with help of other experts wherever necessary.

Among the things that many benefits structured PhD programs offer are:

•a well-defined curriculum, getting you up to speed in your scientific field, but also often including additional courses to prepare you for your professional career

•clear supervision structures and progress monitoring

•being part of a network of graduate students in your field

•additional support infrastructure especially for incoming international students

However, An individual doctorate may leave you and your advisor with more freedom about how to allocate time to various aspects and stages of the PhD; some formal requirements may be weaker.

In the PhD program an important original contribution to science is highly desired, but this should be secondary to the goal of completing the program and receiving the degree. If it isn’t then the risk is that the degree will not be earned. The approved research scope should be fairly well defined and with a reasonable chance of completing it to give useful and original scientific content. Students I knew in the genius category did it differently.

Post doc research offers a chance to reach for the more difficult scientific achievement without assurance of completing it. I did much work under just one principle supervisor. It allows the riskier proposition to be tested in original and innovative work among qualified collaborators, where scientific content is the most important result, and the value added by success is great. I still do a bit of riskier research like my RG project in Deep Space Transport At High Speed, but with ways and means in retirement that do not endanger the career path.

Generally if people come to PhD level faculty expect PhD students they themselves can handle the work, of course once in while/occasionally work should be monitored. Or sometimes it depends on student nature also some pupil needs intense supervision.

James gave very good answer.

Thanks for clarifying and answering of Dr. James F Peters .

I agree and recommend the answer of him .