Setting Back the Clock (by re-applying)

[Bleep_Bloop]

I was surprised recently to learn of cases in which advanced PhD students in the humanities (at good, funded programs) are applying to PhD programs in the exact same field (usually similar programs where they have connections via faculty) as a tactic to buy more funded time and find a way around the 5-year funding constraint. I was even more surprised when, after informally chatting with my adviser about the stresses of doing a 5-year MA/PhD straight out of undergrad, my own adviser nonchalantly mentioned this as an option if I felt like I needed more time to finish the PhD. We're on very good terms, so this wasn't an attempt to get me to back out of the program or anything, I was just venting a little about how the architects of the 5-year humanities PhD typically did not have to pass through this meat-grinder themselves (having done their grad work in the olden days of 8-10 year PhDs). So I was surprised when they brought this up very matter-of-factly as a way that people are getting around the time constraint of the 5-year PhD. Apparently even though they often need to re-take coursework, some students (although it sounds like this is not terribly widespread just yet) stretch out their funding this way, beginning again as first years after doing 3-4 years in a program already, but essentially picking up where they left off in their previous department...effectively stretching five years of funding at one program into 8-10 years between two. Has anyone else heard of this? Any personal experiences? I wouldn't ever want to go through the hell of coursework and comps again so this option is off the table for me, but I'm curious. 

[rising_star]

I've never heard of it, though I have heard of people doing a second PhD in a different field. In fact, I was joking about it the other night while out with friends (because really, who wouldn't want to study sharks for a second PhD?) but, there's no way I'd do comps and a dissertation again. Coursework doesn't bother me, so I could see myself picking up another master's in the future. 

It also seems like it would be awkward to explain spending 3-4 years in one PhD program and then 4-5 years another when interviewing for jobs...

[TakeruK]

??? Wow I've never heard of this. I also have not heard of anyone mentioning a 8-10 year PhD in a positive light. Although my field aims to get people graduated in 5 or 6 years, we don't usually set a hard limit of 5 years because it's not really fair for students who have setbacks out of their control (e.g. their experiment blows up, sometimes literally). My school requires you to petition for permission to stay beyond 6 years with the idea that if after 6 years, you don't have an exit plan in place, then you are better off just leaving than staying longer. Also, programs in my field will not generally allow students to enroll in PhD programs if they have already completed 4-5 years at another school? Usually, most programs will either not let you in a PhD program if you already have a PhD or passed candidacy at another school. 

I guess I just don't understand why schools would want to do this. Isn't it unfair for the first school to have funded a student for 4-5 years and they don't even get to graduate you (assuming you'll get a PhD from the second school instead of the first). I would think it's far better to take fewer students and then promise funding for 6 years than to make it regular practice to lose students after 4-5 years. But am I missing something?

[Bleep_Bloop]

11 hours ago, TakeruK said:

 I also have not heard of anyone mentioning a 8-10 year PhD in a positive light.

Judging by how it was presented to me, it's mostly just a matter of buying more time to work on the dissertation, publish, present, conduct research, etc. before going on the job market so as to build a more competitive profile, especially for students who came into a humanities PhD without the MA and need time to search through archives and learn relevant languages for research. At least in my experience when humanities departments made the transition to the standard 5-year PhD, programs just took the amount of work people used to do in 8-10 years and compressed it to 5, forcing students to do the same with less time. The state of the job market made it even more stressful by forcing you to have a number of publications by the time you go on the market, adding even more work to those 5 years (it used to be that you could get a job with none). So I don't necessarily blame people who do this because I too would like more time to get everything done. However, it seems like a strange (and manipulative) coping mechanism. I can see how someone could explain it away pretty easily, though. Saying that their research interests changed or that after a few years they realized the fit in the first program wasn't that great, etc. 

[TakeruK]

I should clarify---I meant that I know many fields have PhD programs that take 8-10 years. It makes sense the way you put it, but it was just the first time I ever heard anyone saying they wished for more time to finish their work, usually I hear people saying they wish that degree requirements were reduced. I agree with you that this seems to be a very bad coping mechanism. And it sounds like something the field can change by simply not allowing students to extend their programs in this way. In my field, some programs will not accept you into their PhD program if you have advanced past candidacy in another program. Other programs might not even accept you at all if you even started another PhD program in the same field (but if you started a PhD in Physics and then chose to change to an Astronomy PhD, then that is usually okay).

[Chiqui74]

I had never heard of this but I have reservations.  Also, most PhD programs only allow you transfer a certain number of credits so it's not like you could leave one program after 5 years and pick right where you left off somewhere else; you'd have to pretty much start from scratch.  That just doesn't make sense. 

[bhr]

One think worth mentioning is that a lot of programs only guarantee 4-5 years, but can find funding for people (through adjunct appointments or the like) for additional years. The idea of "reapplying" to your own field seems both counter-productive and incredibly risky (I can't imagine having to explain that on the job market). I have a friend changing programs after one year, but that's a very different decision.