Search Career Advice


Browse Archives

Career Advice

Fast Tracking a Ph.D.

June 17, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

When I arrived at Pennsylvania State University’s College of Communications in the fall of 2001, I felt all of the sensations that accompany a fresh start: excitement, relief, uncertainty, trepidation, dread. The dread of living on a stipend that was less than half my former salary propelled me to wonder how quickly I could finish this degree and return to “real life.”

At the college’s grad student orientation, we were told that the funding for Ph.D. students had recently been cut in order to admit more students: instead of a four-year teaching assistantship, we were assured three years. Our grad school dean admitted that a degree could be finished in three years, but it was rarely done. But never fear, the college always needed (exploited?) grad students to teach full time while they finished their dissertations.

He cautioned us about losing our way; Ph.D. students took an average time of six years at the college to finish their degree. He acknowledged this was not a good trend. It wasn’t that students couldn’t finish earlier, they seemed to want to stay here because they had “set up housekeeping,” so to speak. In the most memorable line of the orientation, he advised us to learn from “the corpses along the road": grad students who had stalled in their quest to finish and were content as “ABDs.” “Don’t become a corpse,” he warned.

These words made me all the more anxious to plow through to the end. I had already spent too long as a student in higher ed: six years in college (I transferred to a fine arts college and in essence had to “start over”), another two in a master’s program, and now here I was back for a Ph.D. at the age of 30. I sometimes wondered when is my life going to begin? It would be nice to start earning a real salary and embark on a true career.

I devoured my college’s grad programs handbook and strategized. After a year of coursework, I would take the required candidacy exam during the summer. I would also take courses during the summer, so that I could finish the coursework in two years. In my second summer I would take comprehensives and combine the comps defense with the dissertation proposal meeting. Then, I would take papers I had written on the same theme throughout the two years of coursework and make them over into chapters, creating a final dissertation. Though there were a few mishaps, my strategy played out in just that way. I really was able to complete my Ph.D. -- coursework, comprehensives, dissertation, teaching requirements -- in three years. I entered the program in August 2001, and was hooded in May 2004.

Truth be told, it’s even more amazing that I finished in that time since I am not a very ambitious or driven person. I was motivated largely by love; I met a man online during my first year in the program and I wanted to finish as soon as possible so I could move to New York City and hopefully marry him (which didn’t happen, but it kept me going).

To finish in three years, there are important pieces that must fall into place. You must have an adviser/committee chair who is willing to support you in this goal and work with you. It’s important to ask your adviser, “Can this be done?” Is it possible, with your chosen topic and the type of research you will need to do, to finish in three years? In my case, the answer was yes. My adviser thought it would be possible. If your adviser says no, you may want to consider a different adviser, but the problem might be more with your chosen dissertation topic or even your field -- a Ph.D. program in chemistry might make finishing in three years impossible. In some fields, the period of time simply cannot be shortened.

Also, you may need more time to devise and carry out research projects; my dissertation primarily involved textual analysis, theorizing, and some qualitative audience research. A humanities-centric project can more feasibly be completed in three years than one in the sciences.

It’s essential to zero in on a dissertation topic as soon in the process as you can. I figured out pretty quickly what I wanted to do with my dissertation; I had the first chapter by the end of my first semester. The professor of the film history class I took that first semester assured me that it was a worthwhile dissertation topic: the “extended adolescence” of Mickey Rooney in the Andy Hardy films and how and why the films resonated with Depression-era audiences. I knew that I would have fun researching this topic, so getting it done was not going to be a problem. Thus, the “dissertation topic” piece fell into place for me.

Another crucial piece of the puzzle involves working on the dissertation as part of your coursework. I was able finish the bulk of the work while I was taking classes because I chose my classes with the end project in mind: my goal was to use class papers as eventual chapters in the dissertation. This worked much better than I could have hoped; I seemed to choose just the right seminar classes with research paper assignments that would allow me to cover the different facets of my topic. For a cultural studies seminar, I examined how Rooney’s adolescent films illustrate the American dream of upward mobility. In a qualitative research seminar, I interviewed members of the “historical audience,” people in their 70s and 80s, and I later wrote about how their recollections hinted at why the Andy Hardy films were so popular. In a speech-communication seminar on textual analysis, I analyzed the rhetoric of masculinity in the father-son talks in the films.

During my first year of classes, I wrote two and a half chapters (the interviews would have to be expanded and completed later); my second year yielded five papers that became chapters. I was able to complete about four-fifths of the dissertation as papers for seminars. During my last year at PSU, while I was teaching, I revised the existing chapters, interviewed more participants for the qualitative project, completed the interview chapter, and wrote the introduction and conclusion chapters. In all, I wrote ten chapters and the final dissertation is 280 pages.

Fast tracking a Ph.D. requires sympathetic, accommodating professors — and not just in those who make up your committee. My seminar professors were very receptive to my idea of using their classes to write dissertation chapters; this includes classes that were outside of my college. English professor Michael Bérubé agreed to my plan of using his cultural studies seminar for my selfish ends, even though he was far removed from my project. When he returned my final paper, he joked that he was “only seeing one end of the elephant” of what appeared to be a salient project.

Not everything was smooth sailing. I lost one committee member (when she did not receive tenure). You may have to keep your eye on “alternates” for committee members as I did: people to fill in when a professor doesn’t receive tenure. But I didn’t expect too much from the committee members. It’s important to focus on your adviser; satisfy her demands on the edits of the dissertation, what to include, exclude, what research should be done and so forth. Seek to please your adviser and hope that she knows what she is talking about. In the end, my adviser sensed what was needed for my project and she and the rest of the committee were satisfied with the results.

Since time is of the essence, the dissertation must always be a priority while in grad school. You must accept criticism politely and then make corrections on your manuscript right away. The first time I put the dissertation together as one “book” it did not blend well. My adviser gave me searing comments. I licked my wounds for a while but returned to it in time to defend in spring, 2004.

Ironically, the December before the dissertation defense, my romantic relationship deteriorated. The man I thought I was destined to marry was not my Prince Charming after all. I had to mourn my loss and quickly shift gears to refocus a job search (up until that time I was only looking at opportunities around New York). Amazingly, even at that late date (spring semester), I was able to land a tenure-track job at a small college in Colorado. I successfully defended the dissertation in March, received the job offer a few weeks later, and walked in May commencement. My string of good fortune followed me to Colorado, as I would meet my future husband that very August. We would marry two years later.

Not every circumstance is within your control, but it is possible to finish a doctorate in three or, at the very least, four years. It was important to me to remember that I was in a transitional mode; I did not look at State College as my home or my teaching responsibilities as a permanent job. Go to school, do your coursework, find your topic, and get it done. Your dissertation should not be your life’s work; don’t become too enamored with your project. Don’t lose sight of the fact that grad school is a phase; real life comes after.

Judy Beth Morris has taught college for six years (including two years before receiving her Ph.D.) and will be an assistant professor of communications at Susquehanna University, in Pennsylvania, this fall.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Fast Tracking a Ph.D.

  • Missing important elements
  • Posted by SW on June 17, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • There is some good advice in here (e.g., each course assignment should be work toward something bigger), but some important elements of what is best to achieve during graduate school are completely lacking in this account. How many publications did Dr. Morris have by the end of her three years? Given the time line associated with journal submissions, it's doubtful that she had many. These days, many jobs are difficult to get without a publication. (Perhaps this is more true of social science types of communication projects than the humanities end of the field.) While I agree that it's not good to stay in a PhD program for too long, it would be unrealistic for students seeking certain types of jobs (e.g., ones in first-tier institutions) to go on the job market without publications.

    Also, did Dr. Morris have time to spend with her peers to develop relationships that will last a lifetime?

    As an aside, note how much time the author had already spent in school before entering her PhD program. Sometimes people start with just a BA and the Master's degree is folded in so the program will have to last longer.

  • Posted by DH on June 17, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • I finished my PhD in 3 years, too, though this was 20 years ago and in English, a field where folks are notoriously slow to complete. I appreciate the previous commenter's observation that finishing quickly without publication today makes things very tough on the job market. Were I today presenting my credentials from then, I'm pretty sure the department that hired me then wouldn't have given me much of a look. Having said that, I do think the amount of time toward degree for many people these days has incredibly diminishing returns for them, especially financially but also emotionally. I know that less than helpful behavior from some advisors and committee members contributes much of the delay; but at a certain point, folks in the humanities (in particular) just need to suck it up and do the work. As someone who has directed 15 dissertations in which all but one finished in 5 years or less, and all but one (a different one) got tenure track jobs at graduation, I really work to instill the attitude that finishing a PhD is something manageable and desirable within a limited time frame. Students need to believe this and they need to know their professors believe it.

  • It's called not being distracted
  • Posted by William Hayes , General Education - Biology at South University on June 17, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • I finished a research Master's in 1 year and Ph.D. in three (the last year was while working full time teaching). It can be done and you can get publications into the system in that short of a time. You just have to set goals, keep them, and not be distracted. You also have to forestall a life until the process is over. The downside is you are standing there with a Ph.D. at 26 (looking like you are 18) and administrators tend not to take you too seriously. If you are luck, you will find one who does.

  • Not in history
  • Posted by CC on June 17, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • I've never heard of anyone finishing coursework and a dissertation in history in three years. Perhaps it's been done, but most historians need to spend a good deal of time in the archives/libraries, and those who don't study U.S. history often need to do so abroad. It's sometimes necessary to spend time abroad before selecting a dissertation topic, to make sure the materials you're interested in exist. I think it's very, very rare for a historian to finish in less than five years, esp. coming in with a B.A.

  • Other Advice and Potential Drawback
  • Posted by SHG on June 17, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • It took me longer than 3 years, but I did receive great advice from a professor when putting my committee together. He said, make sure you don't have people with big egos on your committee. Big egos can cause severe conflict and delay the completion of the dissertation and passing of one's dissertation defense. I found this to be true.

    I can also think of one potential drawback to the fast track. If we have a narrow focus going into our program, we may miss an opportunity to pursue a different topic or research question that reveals itself later in our doctoral program. This is what happened to me. I believe I made the right choice in switching topics, and am happy now in what I am doing.

  • two birds with one stone
  • Posted by random thoughts on June 17, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • I also used course assignments to explore and develop parts of my dissertation -- although not as effectively as the author. (Full disclosure: working full-time and more during my program meant my program took much more than three years. But my situation required a similar economy of effort.)

    The key is developing a well-defined area of interest to explore. In at least one course I asked the instructor if I might write a paper that addressed a topic a little differently than the prescribed assignment. (The worst that can happen is for him/her to say "no." In this case, he didn't. That paper became a chapter.)

    I also adapted a couple of those papers (and preliminary work on other chapters) as papers for professional meetings, enhancing my CV as I worked on the dissertation.

    In this, as in most areas of life, focus yields results.

  • PhD summer courses?
  • Posted by took much longer , Department of Art History on June 17, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • It is very unlikely for most graduate students to find appropriate courses to take during the summer. Futhermore, most graduate faculty would not be willing to have a student take comprehensive exams in the summer nor have a dissertation proposal meeting with the Ph.D. committee—faculty are not in residence during the summer!

    In my area, summers more likely would be spent learning more languages (ancient or medieval as well as modern) and doing field work in museums in Europe.

  • Posted by Busy-retired , Professor Emerita on June 17, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • I did mine (Theoretical Physics) in 4 from a B. S. back in the 60's. M. S. in the first year, and Ph. D. three years later. So, in certain circumstances, it can be done in the hard sciences. I fear that I didn't find either an adviser or a possible thesis topic until nearly the end of my second year in grad school. And then the thesis topic blew up around the end of my third year. My adviser was on a one-year leave of absence during my fourth year. Fortunately, I stumbled over a considerably more interesting thesis topic while waiting for his reply to the collapse of my original thesis. (Remember that this was in the days of 'snail-mail.' The turn-around time for a reply was about 5 weeks.) This was so interesting that I pursued it avidly, and completed the work for what I thought was a thesis about 6 weeks after I received his reply to my original panicky letter. I then wrote up an abbreviated version and sent it off to him. To cut a long story short: He agreed and told me to go ahead. I did, and finished.

  • Posted by took me much longer, too on June 17, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I don't want to pile on, because I think the basic point here is a really good one, but I do think the article underestimates the specifics to the author's situation/field that made this possible. First, I agree with CC, that in history a three-year PhD is utterly unheard of. Second, I think the article needs to give a little greater weight to how much having the previous degrees completed facilitated the author's speed. Entering grad school with a BA, as I did, we were required to take three years of coursework. You had to complete coursework before taking doctoral exams (which were comprehensive to our fields, not focused on the dissertation topic as is the case is many programs). And no, there weren't any relevant classes offered in the summer (though independent study might have been an option). While I suppose one might have possibly written a history dissertation in a year, theoretically finishing in four years, I don't know anyone who has (the traditional model was 3 years coursework, exams, 1 year research, 1 year writing, but I only know one person who finished that quickly - most everyone else took 7. More if you had to travel to far away places for research) (admittedly, I hear that my department has shaved this down a bit since I finished).

    Moreover, even if you finished in the fourth year, there's no way you'd finish with a job, since writing a dissertation in many humanities fields would be impossible if you were also spending the time to make a full assault on the job market (ask dissertators how much time they lose from writing the diss when they have to tackle cover letters and so on for 40 very different schools!).

    I'm also really surprised at the idea that the sciences might take longer. Statistically, scientists take much less time than humanities students. It's true that you can't make chemical reactions happen on anything other than their own schedule, but the research and writing process is completely different in the sciences than in the humanities. Dissertations are shorter, follow a more standard format, and scientists work in much more collaborative environments. (Not suggesting they have an easier task - I couldn't spend 18 hours at a crack in the lab - but their time to degree is usually shorter.)

    Again, I think the basic point of this article is really really important, but I wish there had been a slightly broader perspective, because the emphasis on "you, too, can finish in three years, or maybe four" makes it easy for people in a lot of fields to dismiss the whole thing as utterly unrealistic.

    (Now, should all these fields take longer? Should grad schools change their requirements to get people through more quickly? Sure, but that's a different issue from being able to get through current programs so quickly.)

  • Finishing fast
  • Posted by Done in four , Assistant professor, Dept. of English and Film Studies at Wilfird Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario on June 17, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Another series of important factors are that the expectations that a student will set for her/himself and that expectations that are set by the supervisor. In my case (done in four years in English), I expected to work harder than I ever had in my life, and my supervisor -- notoriously hard-nosed but chosen by me for that very quality -- agreed. It never occurred to me to create a comfortable niche in the department, or to desire to live in poverty in that small but commodious city for the rest of my life. My supervisor was no pussycat, but her lion's roar fit in with my own expectations, and I defended successfully in the spring of year four. By the time I completed coursework and two candidacy exams (with distinction), presented at ten conferences, published four articles and a monograph, and taught three courses to undergraduates, plus the little matter of writing my dissertation, a life where I was paid to do these things without having to pay tuition -- and without answering to my supervisor for every word I wrote -- seemed very enticing indeed, and relaxing by comparison. Now that I am the supervisor, I always remember that I am neither the doctoral students' friend nor their colleague; I am their boss and I am there to raise the bar and insist that they can jump it.

  • Finishing quickly
  • Posted by Done quick on June 17, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • I can't imagine prolonging graduate school any longer than the bare minimum (3 to 4 years). I finished my MA in one, then PhD in an additional three, straight through, and had my tenure-track job lined up, all before the age of 26.

    And to answer SW: two journal articles in print upon graduation, 2 more accepted at the time, and a whole host of life-long relationships...still going strong.

    Frankly, anyone taking much longer than 4 years is lazy.

  • Some good advice, but WTF???
  • Posted by WTF , former grad student at A University in PA on June 17, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • At the college’s grad student orientation, we were told that the funding for Ph.D. students had recently been cut in order to admit more students: instead of a four-year teaching assistantship, we were assured three years. Our grad school dean admitted that a degree could be finished in three years, but it was rarely done. But never fear, the college always needed (exploited?) grad students to teach full time while they finished their dissertations.

    He cautioned us about losing our way; Ph.D. students took an average time of six years at the college to finish their degree. He acknowledged this was not a good trend. It wasn’t that students couldn’t finish earlier, they seemed to want to stay here because they had “set up housekeeping,” so to speak. In the most memorable line of the orientation, he advised us to learn from “the corpses along the road": grad students who had stalled in their quest to finish and were content as “ABDs.” “Don’t become a corpse,” he warned.

    Funding cut from 4 years to 3 even though most people take longer (about double)?

    Funding cut to allow MORE people to be admitted?

    An open admission that administration used grad student labor as instructors INSTEAD of providing them proper assistantship funding?

    Students who ran out of money and failed to finish were openly described AS CORPSES?

    No explanation of WHY SO MANY STUDENTS BECOME CORPSES, yet they need to admit so many MORE students to replace them?

    Not one comment about any of this?

    Here it is...in writing. What so many of us have heard about, seen happen to friends, and experienced first-hand.

    AND NOT ONE COMMENT?

    And where's the outcry about retention in these situations? Oh, that's right...higher ed needs to retain all those willfully ignorant, illiterate morons festering in the dark corners of their institutions, but not one person (other than the usual adjunct advocates) ever talks about how the truly best and brightest at the schools get tossed aside like garbage.

    I am heartened by the comments noting the flaws in the strategy the OP used so effectively. But let's be quite clear: THIS STRATEGY WILL NOT WORK FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF GRAD STUDENTS...no matter the discipline, the school, or the previous training. Loony admins see one person at an institution complete the Ph.D. so efficiently and then generalize that plan to every other student, usually ignoring all the other factors working against them. N=1 is NOT a pattern!

    I attended a similar school for a doctoral program that "suggested" everyone finish in 4 years after receiving 3 years of "guaranteed funding" (which was not really guaranteed). Those 3 years of funding entailed massive grading respnsibilities, dealing with troubled professors and students, and otherwise exhaustive coursework wherein I managed to excel despite the the low pay, long hours, and poor working conditions. Once the assistantship gravy train goes away, those already-poverty-level wages got cut by half for adjunct work with MORE responsibility and ZERO administrative support (Gotta retain the undergrads!).

    In my (former) program, guess who finished most often and most efficiently? The people who didn't take ANY departmental funding. Their part-time coursework paid for by their other jobs allowed them to finish without dealing with the University B***S*** we funded students did.

    Let's not talk about that.

  • Not lazy
  • Posted by CC on June 18, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • No, "done quick," not everyone who takes more than 4 years is lazy. In history, even 4 years is very, very uncommon (I know of no one who finished in 4), and not because historians are lazy. Very few historians can write papers for coursework that will become a part of their dissertation, or that can be published, without spending time in archives away from their university. Particularly for non-Americanists. In fact, in some fields, very little towards the dissertation can be accomplished until one goes to the archives/libraries in the country of study, and very little can be published without travel to archives. And history exams are very comprehensive, not focused on the dissertation.

  • It Took Me Seven Years
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on June 18, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Three things ...

    First, what can I say? ... I suppose love is as good a reason as any to want to rush through one’s Ph.D. program.

    Second, in my opinion – and I realize Professor Morris is describing her work within time constraints – the most important part of the process, whether you’re in a hurry or not, is the choice of a research advisor ... and it’s not a bad idea to think about your research advisor in terms of an intellectual interaction that may last for as long as ten years; i.e., for at least five or six years beyond having your degree in hand.

    When I was ready to think about writing in statistics – and after completing the course work and passing the qualifying exams for Ph.D.s in both mathematics and education research and evaluation (it’s a long story) — I was 32 and my research advisor was 23 (he was very bright). At our first meeting outside class, I told him what I had in mind for my dissertation. He asked me to let him think about it for a week. At the end of the week he told me (1) he would take me on as a student, (2) he generally thought my dissertation topic was interesting and achievable, and (3) he had a plan for my research program (which he had outlined in detail).

    His plan was for me to study all of the research in my area (naturally) and write five quite different but closely related papers to be submitted for publication (he had broad outlines for each of the five). Having done that, I would write a dissertation by preparing an introduction and providing the “filler” that integrated the five “chapters.” Together we made some minor revisions to his plan, and I was on my way. In fact, it took me about a month to write the actual dissertation. During the process, we uncovered several other lines of research that we pursued together after I had degree in hand, and we worked together on-and-off for another twenty years.

    I think SHG’s warning about having individuals with big egos on your committee is generally accurate; however four of the seven – count them, seven – members of my committee had enormous egos. Four years after my advisor presented his plan, my dissertation defense was a three-ring circus. Four of the five papers had already been accepted for publication (the fifth was accepted about a year later). I made a fifteen minute presentation, my committee members got in several extended arguments with each other while I sat there twiddling my thumbs and making an occasional comment, and two hours later they kicked me out, Ph.D. in hand.

    You may be certain the fact that I had four published papers and another already under review sent an important message to those schools where I subsequently submitted my application. I have no idea why more graduate advisors do not strike the same bargain with their students.

    Third, I have often thought the Ph.D. process was the INTELLECTUAL low point of my life. Focus, focus, focus, narrow, narrow, narrow, grind, grind, grind. Prospective academics, especially those preparing to teach at liberal arts colleges or community colleges, should have the option of writing a Ph.D. dissertation (Zzzzzzzz) or completing three, more or less related (and be creative in relating them) master’s degrees, all with serious master’s theses, of course.

    Writing those papers for publication as a graduate student was quite wonderful — even exciting at times – but I would have much preferred completing a master’s in mathematics (probability), a master’s in physics (“modern” physics), and a master’s in philosophy (history of science) ... and maybe even another master’s in mathematics (point-set topology). Now, wouldn’t that have been fun? And if education can’t be fun ... well what’s the point?

  • WTF makes some good points
  • Posted by Faculty Person on June 18, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • The institution should be more concerned about losing so many students. Simply exploiting grad students as low cost labor is disgraceful.
    I was one of those "tenured grad students" Took over twice as long to complete the Ph.D. as I should have. One lesson from my experience -- choose an adviser who has a good track record of getting students through in a timely manner.

  • Friz et al
  • Posted by DFS on June 18, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Came down with cancer. Beat it.

    First thesis advisor moved away to another state. Had to change my subject, since no one else wanted to pursue it.

    Second thesis advisor, my most respected teacher, died. Had to change my subject again, since no one else wanted to pursue it.

    Third thesis advisor, fortunately, stuck around and stood up for our work, although he didn't need to, even though my work actually disproved his Ph.D. dissertation. No worries, since he's now department chair.

    Sometimes, shit happens. It took six years to get my work done and approved, and it's all been a greatly rewarding learning experience.

  • I did it too
  • Posted by DrJudiC , Business Owner at Living The Dream on June 18, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I finished my PhD in 4 years, which included a about 1 1/2 years I took off. I had to get it done before I turned 30 and so I had all the motivation in the world. Had I not taken all that time off I would have finished in 3 years or less. During my first class in the program I had a professor who told us "you don't have an opinion until you have those 3 letters after your name PhD". Most of the people were offended. But I got what he was saying and used that the entire time I was in the program. Find a way to cite everything, so there is not ever a question. I can always add my piece in my assessment. During the dissertation stage it started rough because my chair was not on board. Once I went on to get the right chair it was smooth sailing. I only had 1 chapter done when I returned to school in at the end of the 07 fall semester. I said I needed to be done by the end of the semester because I was turning 30. I told the dean and my committee chair my deadline. I didn’t think they believed me but they did not knock my drive. My committee was AMAZING. The 3 most supportive people I could ever ask for. When I went in to work with them I kept one thing in mind. If they agree I will have a PhD. Until they agree I remain ABD. That was the difference between me and many of the other students who worked on their dissertations while I was off but still were there ABD with me. I was did what I had to do. If there was a direction a committee member recommended I investigated it. That way I can come back and say "yes, I tried that this was the result". Many doctoral candidates get in their own way thinking they know best. My committee and I respected each other as knowledgeable professionals. They trusted my work and I their guidance. But since I was not spending all the time trying to prove why my way was right, it took me a good 6 months to do the bulk of my dissertation... revisions and all.

  • As a follow-up,
  • Posted by DFS on June 18, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • I will say that the three subject areas were, chronologically, invariant imbedding, algebra, and control theory.

    I now thank God I experienced all three!

    (Zzzzzzzz)

    And so do my CC students.

  • Time is one of several considerations
  • Posted by anonymous on June 20, 2009 at 6:15am EDT
  • When I started grad school in chemical engineering, my final choice of advisor ultimately boiled down to two professors that specialized in the subject that I wanted to pursue. I and most of my colleagues were starting the program having completed a BS and were planning to skip the masters degree and go straight for the Ph.D.

    Professor #1 had a reputation for being easy going and his students nearly all finished in exactly in 4 years, with a few finishing in just 3 and some change. The theses were all of a simple case study structure -- try addressing a problem a couple of different ways that he had suggested and report the differences.

    Professor #2 had a reputation for being as hard as nails. Half of his students finishing in 5 years and the other half became ABD corpses. The thesis content was expected to focus on developing new theory and algorithmic approaches to solve a tough industrial problem. This professor also put a greater emphasis on publishing, presenting at conferences, and selling the research. Professor #1 jokingly refered to the latter as "the Madisson Avenue approach to chemical engineering".

    In the end game I chose professor #2 and graduated in 5 years. I learned a tremendous ammount from him even though I increasingly disliked working for him during my stay.

    • Students that survived him were much better equiped for the real life problems - a Ph.D working in industry is expected to solve tough complex problems, not simply try things out that have been handed to them by someone else.
    • After 11 years working in industry I have observed that once a technical solution has been developed, a significant sales/marketing effort is required to get it implemented no matter how good the idea is. Technical solutions wither and dissappear if they are not aggressively marketed. Likewise professors need to be able to "sell" their research...the ones who can have funding while the others do not. Professors that do not push both written and oral communication development are not doing their students any favors.
    • The reputation of your advisor extends beyond the university gate. The people that tend to hire Ph.D's also tend to know who is producing high quality grads and who is not.

    In summary, time targets are only one of the many factors you should consider when picking an advisor. In most of the technical fields I do not believe 3 years is a reasonable expectation if your starting point is a BS. If your stating point is an MS in the same field, then it sounds reasonable.

  • Good Story
  • Posted by Jon S. , none at none on July 14, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • This was heartening to hear.

    I live in NY and DC, and in this credential-heavy world, the PhD is becoming the defacto qualification for those of us who don't want a JD or an MD.

    I hope that academia understands this in fields where application to industry exists and makes every effort to move professional scientists/social scientists through the pipeline so that their ideas can do the economy good (and they can get high paying jobs in applied theory.)

  • Apparently education cannot guarantee open-mindedness
  • Posted by Fed up with narrow-minded PhDs on July 14, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • I was shocked to see the comment that anyone taking longer than 4 years to complete a PhD is lazy. Perhaps those who rush through a program are not taking time to truly absorb the life of the mind? Does it really matter how long one takes to finish a PhD? (Only to rush into a low-paying job anyway) Is it possible taking longer could lead to a better understanding of the subject, better teaching and increased productivity in the long run?

    I'll finish my PhD in 5 or 6 years. I'm taking my time because I've also delivered two children during that period, while working part-time after finishing the academic portion of my program and teaching courses... so go ahead and call me lazy. And yes, I've been criticized for having children during the program, but the reality is being a doctoral student is much easier than having real work responsibilities, and it makes sense to have children then. I can only hope the narrow-mindedness displayed in some of these comments does not make into the classrooms in which these PhDs are teaching. Just remember, the number of degrees one has does not make one wise, a good teacher, or a better judge of character... it just means we wrote a couple more papers. Finally, I wonder how much more progress we could make in the academy if we supported one another's efforts?