A general discussion on ''long and short PhDs'', thought it is worth discussing!!!
The topic is all about the doctoral degree ''The PhD''.....let it be in Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Maths, Engineering, Economics, Commerce, or Literature....Here my discussion is mainly focused in getting a PhD in Science. If you do a PhD in UK, Germany or France you need to finish your work in 3-3.5 years. So, one has to be pretty much organized and lucky to get the degree. In Switzerland it takes 4-4.5 years. In the US it is 4-5 years and if it goes longer, one can be kicked out of the program. In India it could take from 4 to 10 years. :-)
Having done a PhD, I have many friends who did, are doing and who would like to do a PhD. Many of my friends who graduated with me are now at different parts of the world as Assistant Professors (there is one I am most proud of), Researchers and Post Doctoral Fellows. The one I am most proud of for having gotten this degree is someone who graduated from ETH, Zurich who is now an Assistant Professor in the US, who used to work for IBM before. I know a friend of mine from Cochin University who finished his PhD in 3 years with 13 publications who is now a Lecturer at one of the Universities in India. Another friend who did his PhD from Indian Institute of Technology, IITM, in 4 years is now a Professor at one of the IITs in India. Many other friends finished in 4-5 years from different Universities or Institutes in and out of India with quite good quality publications who are now Researchers or Post Doctoral Researchers at different parts of the world. I also know some others who have taken 9 to 10 years to finish their PhD studies from Indian Universities.
How can it be that some can do the same degree, in similar fields, with similar number of publications in a short period while others cannot? What is the difference here, what are the criteria/circumstances to have this difference? At the moment when the saying is ''the world is moving faster and the competitions are becoming tougher'' is it good to do a long PhD? I open this for a discussion.
According to me the number of years does not matter, but no country should allow PhD to stretch out for 10 years. I am sure if he or she would have been better organized could have finished the same amount of work in 5 years or even less. I assume that people taking 10 years to finish their PhD is just stretching out their work by sleeping off half the time or are there some other factors behind a long PhD?I think it is high time that India or any other country has to change this scenario completely. One of the reasons I can think of is stated here: The number of years one took for doctoral studies become important if one is keen in having an academic position in India, and when the requirement for applying for an Assistant Professorship in India is a minimum of 3 years of Post Doctoral experience. Besides this minimal requirement, Institutes/Universities prefer to have candidates below 35 years old, so if you take 10 years time to finish your doctoral studies, you will be 32 years old when you finish your PhD. That means, one will be 35 years old by the time he/she reaches this minimum requirement for applying for an Assistant Professorship in India, whilst, your colleagues, those who have done their doctoral studies in 4 or 5 years time could have more experience and, therefore have more chances entering academics by that time.
For those who would like to do a PhD, never take it for granted and finish it fast and efficiently.
Recently there was also a similar discussion in Nature medicine about ''long and short PhD'' which is worth reading.
2 comments:
Here are some of comments which I received on the same topic, thought they are worth putting it here:
BettyLeny said...
Well....this is a quick comment , and I have my own thoughts on the issue, which I will put down later.
Right now I'm doing my Ed.D. (Doctorate in Education)...which at UPENN is almost the same as the PhD....except that for Ph.D, the requirement is 22 courses, and Ed.D is 20. Otherwise the dissertation requirements, standards, qualifiers and every other little thing is the same.
Depending on whether you came into the program with a Masters in Educ or not...it could take you 2-4 years just to complete coursework. Then you are expected to read on the general topic of your interest for at least 6 months if not a year...before you write a comprehensive paper on that topic....showing that now you have studied enough to make you an expert in the field that you chose to study. That papers is also the qualifier for the program. Only after that will IRB (Internal review Board) clear you for data collection....(even though many do start collectin on the sly earlier) A half year or a year of data collection, and another half year to a year for data analysis..your looking at 4-6 year of solid work before graduating.
I have never understood why some disciplenes take 3-4 years while others need 6-10 years to finish the doctorate. I have been told that it takes longer to develop certain true researcher mode of thinking, and that a Ph.D is about being a expert in the field, and developing certain ways of thinking about the world. I have also been told that its better to publish a good peice in one of the top journals, rather than get any done in a less popular journal. Which is why the no of publication are less important than where you have published. That really sounds silly...but that seems to be one of the rules we are playing by.
Its a crazy world...these PhDs, Ed.Ds and the rest of these kalla buddhi jeevikal. I dont know why Im in it...but Ive come this far...Im just trying to get out of here now. :)
BettyLeny said...
Yeah...on the publications note...the team you work with/for, and the PI's agenda makes a big difference in the publications. Which is why Im yet to publish my first paper (sigh! sob!) and Leny seems to get a paper in every now and then (sigh! Sob! again).
Andrew Strathclyde said...
just some free comment:
- if an institution leave a student to be PhD for 10 years... beh, probably the institution has not a serious internal checking/audit system, and the little efficiency of the student is probably in relation with its university
- PhDs programs are different in each institution: somewhere it is necessary to study and pass exams, somewhere else it's just research. So it's really difficoult to compare time and productions of different students in different universities.
- the mentoring and the field is also important: in some sector (sciences in general) there is a lot of research and publishing. and if your mentor publish alot, you will probably publish aswell, if nobody in your institution is interested in publishing, you will probably follow them. (I think that publishing is very boring and subjected to the mafia of the journals)
- finally there is people working during the PhD, maybe bcause is in their contract, maybe because they have not a contract. In this case, the abnormal lenght of the course should be seen as "normal" for a part-time PhD which usually has a double lenght respect to the normal. In many institutions (of different level) PhD are commonly used to teach, and sometimes they are not even formally payed for this.
- after all this, i am super-organized, and I keep a beautiful and up-dated Gantt chart behind my chair that ends two month before the formal end of the PhD... just to be shure :)
SphericalBlogger said...
A very relevant article. And a good one too. I think this might clear some of the doubts!
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n11/full/nm1107-1265.html
Anuji Abraham said...
My response to the above comments:
It is difficult to compare between different fields. I was mainly focusing on Natural Sciences where I could find many examples.
Making one an expert in the field takes a long way I assume. One cannot narrow down or constraint the barriers of the field you are working in. I believe that during a PhD one has to develop the ability to think independently if your desire is to do independent research. Means, one should become independent researchers/thinkers. During your PhD it is difficult to judge whether the idea came from you or your boss. Sometimes the global aim/idea of the work would be there (defined) but you come up with small independent contributions to the global idea to make it work in practice. PhD is the training period to become independent thinkers.
The number and the quality of publications depend on you, the field, the work, the luck factor, and many more criteria...
I seriously think that a student should be given some sort of dead line. Many students have elongated their PhD to 10 years (mostly in India) because they take it casually as they don't have dead lines and also because they get paid. I think a dead line can make one efficient.
After all why do you do all these research?, to prove the abstracts, to make the world a better place. :)
This is really interesting, some views on the upper limits of the duration of a PhD. But what according to you is the minimum time required for a PhD ?
Post a Comment