How to describe a previous uncompleted PhD on postdoc applications?

Question

I am currently completing a PhD studentship, and I'm aiming to complete by the end of the year. After this, I'm looking for a postdoc position in academia or industry. At the moment I'm working on my CV and applications.

One thing I'm unsure about is how to describe my previous research experience. Specifically, I previously (around 11 years ago) took part in a PhD program, but unfortunately did not complete it.

My question is, how should I describe that time period (4 years) on the CV / applications?

1. Be honest, call it a PhD studentship, but don't list it on my completed education/qualifications (the implication being that it wasn't completed).
2. Give a vague position title (e.g. 'scientist') - not technically untrue - and be prepared to answer questions in the interview about what that actually means.
3. Give a specific position title (e.g. RA) - less honest, but less likely to invite questions.

Which approach would be best? I would prefer not to have to highlight this with potential employers, if possible, but I also don't want to be dishonest on my applications. As a potential employer, which would be the lesser of the evils to you? Would you be more likely to throw out a CV at the shortlisting stage based on a historic uncompleted PhD?

For context, I have other research experience and fairly extensive lab skills. I also have various outputs including (mostly middle authorship) papers, talks and posters and have won competitive prizes and travel awards. I will also hope to publish at least one first author original research paper on my PhD work.

Answer 1

I think this is a non-issue. When I review resumes from new PhDs (note: for non-university research positions, not post-docs), I rarely care about anything that happened prior to grad school. Any of these are likely to be fine. Still, my thoughts....

I think the most elegant way is to omit it completely.

• Under education, you can list your completed degrees. As you say, anything impressive that you want to highlight from earlier years can be bullets here.
• Then under work experience, you start with the first position after leaving the unsuccessful PhD.

That will take your work history back 8 years and give a reasonable explanation for what you did between undergrad and grad school. No need to account for every single year during that time.

Your option #3 also seems reasonable, though I don't see the upside.

• It is perfectly honest -- that was your title, and the technical staff will immediately see what happened (they shouldn't care)
• Non-technical "resume screeners", who are more likely to be off-put by this, are less likely to pick up on it
• But, this reduces your signal-to-noise ratio (you want your resume to pack a punch, not list irrelevant details), and you won't get many points for transparency.

I see even less upside for option #1, though my analysis is basically the same as for #3.

I would avoid option #2 -- it has the same upsides above, but could be seen as deliberately obfuscating (which is basically true) or trying to oversell.