Years for a PhD

[kgrove]

I have been looking at different programs and there seems to be wide variety on how long it takes to complete a PhD, depending on the school.  I have seen schools saying that it will take anywhere from 4-7 years (for programs that do not require a masters beforehand).  Anyone have insight as to why this is?  Should my opinion of a program be effected by how long they say it takes to complete a PhD?

[Monochrome Spring]

One of the major reasons I decided to not go with my 2nd choice program was because students under my POI generally took 7 years for PhD at a minimum. I think it's a valid way to rank programs if they are otherwise equal.

[surefire]

I have been looking at different programs and there seems to be wide variety on how long it takes to complete a PhD, depending on the school.  I have seen schools saying that it will take anywhere from 4-7 years (for programs that do not require a masters beforehand).  Anyone have insight as to why this is?  Should my opinion of a program be effected by how long they say it takes to complete a PhD?

 

This is an important thing that you should look into; while you shouldn't necessarily dismiss a program based on this, you should explore it to help contextualize what you're getting into.

 

Something to consider, before I point out some broad strokes: take care re: where you get this info. Some schools have projected timelines for how long they think their PhD SHOULD take, and this might be out of step with reality. A program may, for example, have a timeline on their website that details how one could progress through the degree in 5 years. But if you ask what the ACTUAL AVERAGE time to completion is, it might be more like 6 or 7. You should find out what the average is for the department, it's a mistake to just go by the projected timeline.

 

On reasons for the variance: there are lots of reasons. A big one is whether or not you're made to work (TA/RA) or if you have some external funding. Another might have to do with how things like comprehensive exams are administered. Another (and this is me speaking anecdotally, others may feel differently) might pertain to what kind of work you're doing (I tend to see people doing quant projects that are extensions of their own MA work or their supervisor's work finish faster). Another thing to consider is: what is the average amount of time it takes people in the program to get to ABD status? That will help to highlight where students may be getting bogged down (is it with the initial requirements or the actual diss. research stage?).

 

How this should impact your opinion: Be wary of super-long average completion times; but consider this especially when you look at how many years you would be funded for in the department. Does the department only fund for 4 years and it usually takes people 7 or 8 to finish? That doesn't bode well, especially if there are limited TA/RA work opportunities.

 

Just a few broad thought from me! Good luck!

[lyrehc]

The standard rule of thumb is that it takes 2 years for the master's if it isn't part of the PhD.  May doctorate programs require that same 2 year investment.  As far as PhD programs go, 3-5 is fairly common.  In my program I have 3 years of classes and will take the comprehensive exams after I complete them.  That sounds like a lot of classes, but with only taking 2-3 per semester (and work load is such that you really can't do classes justice if you try to go over) it is likely that you'll want to take more than what you can fit within the program.  This is especially true if you try to learn a variety of methods which I highly recommend. I then have one year of funding to research and write my dissertation if I finish in 4 years. If I go over funding without fellowships is much more limited - but qualitative dissertations by their very nature take longer.

 

Definitely look at how much funding is offered.  Look at how many methods courses you'll get.  My graduate liaison likes to say that you can learn lots of topics after graduation but that methods are much harder to pick up later.  Look at whether your program offers classes in areas of research or whether you're expected to read and learn theory outside of the classroom.  All of that will factor into program length.

[Vene]

One of the major reasons I decided to not go with my 2nd choice program was because students under my POI generally took 7 years for PhD at a minimum. I think it's a valid way to rank programs if they are otherwise equal.

I'm with you on that.

[amlobo]

Keep in mind that there is a middle ground you want to see on the length of time - too short or too long are both bad.  You need enough time to get pubs in order to be competitive on the market, but you don't want to languish away in your program either.  I think insufficient funding is often at the root of either extreme.  The consensus I get from professors in my program is that 5-6 years is kind of ideal.  

 

Required coursework and overall structure can vary widely by program, so that can be a factor in time-to-degree; if you have to take 2 years of coursework vs. 3, when you take comps, etc.  Also, if a program is heavily qualitative, I'd assume their average time would be longer just due to the composition of their cohorts.  And, of course, program time can be affected by a lot of individual factors - research methodology, whether you come in with a master's, funding source, etc.  I didn't take time-to-degree into account when applying, but I definitely asked about it after being accepted and talked with students and potential advisors to get a real sense of how long it would take under my particular circumstances.