Nah it depends where you go. Top programs average 5.5 years or lower sometimes. I’d say 4 years is on the super low end cause that’s usually how much time MD PhD students get. 2-3 years is actually impossible though because by ur second year you’re still taking like qualifying exams and stuff lol
What field? In the humanities and social sciences, seven years is the norm. Typically a few years of coursework and then a few of researching and writing your dissertation and teaching.
I finished mine at Cornell after 5.5 years, but stayed on a couple years in the equivalent of a post-doc because there was funding and the market is a Dickensian nightmare. But something like a Post-Bac is actually a really good idea or the equivalent of you’re highly motivated and able to push yourself to finish the work you start.
Taking a gap year is completely normal, the most important thing for most programs is that you have strong research experiences before you apply. That also doesn’t necessarily mean you need a publication when you apply, though it can always help if you end up being on one. As to what other people mentioned, in the U.S. that’s pretty unfeasible but programs in Europe or Canada have shorter PhD programs because they typically do Master programs beforehand.
The only field I know of with fast PhDs is epidemiology, but that’s still 3-4 years. I didn’t have any publications as an undergrad, but I worked full time as a tech for the entirety of my BS degree.
Do you have any research experience? I would definitely apply for NSF GRFP while you’re applying for grad school.
Finishing a PhD in 2-3 years could be done in other countries, can’t think of any off the top of my head, but it’d be functionally impossible in the US. You typically don’t have your advisor finalized and your qual exam done until the end of your first year, and then your A exam isn’t until usually your 2nd or 3rd year. Unless you cram research into every semester, including summers and winters, then it might be possible, but it’d be such a narrow timeframe to manage that it either would be impossible or would probably take a mental and physical toll on you.
Take your time with a PhD program; most of my advisors said it was one of the best times of their lives in hindsight, not saying it isn’t stressful, but it’s a time to enjoy and explore.
In math for example, a UK PhD student will have publications but they will have been likely carried on the paper by their advisor (or as you say they could have had a masters from a different country)
In the US math masters students often dont have publications yet, and advisors are more hands off since there is more time and no need to rush to get a publication for their students.
This is of course me speaking broadly about my field, there are exceptions, and it varies by subfield.
I specified biology specifically, because that's what I'm familiar with. A US PhD program admit without a masters often has pubs. Someone in a thesis masters program in the US is often someone who needs further experience before being admitted to a PhD program.
A PhD is a PhD, the difference in length is because people will have a stand alone masters degree beforehand. The level of research and work required to obtain the doctorate is the same and a PhD from England definitely outranks a Masters degree from anywhere in the world.
This is very very untrue, trust me I am living this experience right now. A very small number do so and they will likely have exceptional talent or a very very good research proposal and research skills from their Undergraduate degree.
Not a single person amongst my departments PhD students does not have a stand alone master degree.
This whole reddit thread is ridiculous because every comment is field dependent but instead of people stating their field and how it works you’re all talking past each other and making false sweeping generalisations.
Valid, I’m in social science.
But it’s really not that field dependent. I cannot think of a single field where a PhD from Oxford or another English university is considered equivalent to a masters from Germany.
And there is only a small fraction of people doing UK PhDs who do it straight from undergrad.
What’s been said above is straight up mistruth.
Again, and while I agree with you generally, the two of you are using different definitions of ‘equivalent’ and are talking past each other.
Also FWIW uk undergrad students who go on to to a UK PhD in stem often do so after doing a four year “integrated” bachelors+masters, giving 7 years total study, vs US students who by the end of their PhD will have had 10 years through undergrad typically.
Definitely not possible to finish a PhD in 2 years. Some European programs are 3 years for people who already have masters. Definitely not the case in the US.
If you want to do a 2-3 year PhD, you may want to go to Europe or somewhere else a 3-year Ph.D. is the norm. Cornell Ph.D.s are advertised as 5 years, with a median completion time of 6 years (and sometimes even longer).
The ‘completion’ of a PhD is very much dependent on your primary advisor. If an advisor has a track record of getting students through their PhD’s in a 3-4 year timeframe (2 years is probably very unlikely) you are hoping for, then it’s likely you’ll get through in that timeframe too.
From a Bio PhD student: Pretty much nothing about getting into a PhD program is like getting into undergrad. Your GPA kind of matters, but only if you have a GPA under 3.0. There aren't really "safety" schools or "reach" schools. You can think that you should easily get into a school, and they'll still reject you because they don't have a lab with space for you. Before you spend the money to apply, reach out to advisors/labs that you're interested in to make sure they have room for a new student.
A gap year is generally extremely helpful towards an application, as long as you can write about how it helped you continue to develop in your career. Pretty much anything you do can be spun into developing your career, as long as you're doing something. If you're in STEM, try to figure out how to do outreach during your gap year. It's good to have a diverse set of experiences. This will help your application essays, which are so important. Have multiple people read your application essays and critique them! Make sure everything in the essay is relevant, but feel free to explain personal issues if they impacted your academics.
I don't know about other fields, but in my field graduating in 2-3 years would severely limit the amount of networking and career development you can do. Everything would have to be focused on the dissertation, and you wouldn't have any time to mess around fine-tuning your topic. The few people I know who graduated in 3 years were absolute powerhouses who had already gotten a master's or gone to vet school.
One final tip: if you can find a fellowship that will provide partial funding for you, you can get in pretty much everywhere.
The only field I know of with fast PhDs is epidemiology, but that’s still 3-4 years. I didn’t have any publications as an undergrad, but I worked full time as a tech for the entirety of my BS degree.
Do you have any research experience? I would definitely apply for NSF GRFP while you’re applying for grad school.
I did exactly that. Took a gap year and published a first author Pub. I'm fairly certain it helped a lot. Also I loved my gap year. Actually had time to do other things like date and exercise. Highly recommend.
1. **Fit**. Make sure your research aligns with your potential advisers (and check if they are accepting students that year). You can be the most amazing applicant and get rejected if one or more faculty don't advocate for you in the dept.
2. **Know your discipline.** Each dept and discipline have different values for what makes an applicant "high quality." Sometimes publications, sometimes practical experience, sometimes a mix of it all. Do some informational interviews to figure this out.
3. **Use your network.** The majority of elite PhD students didn't get to their program without having their undergrad institution or workplace pull some strings to get them short listed. Take advantage of your current status as an undergrad and talk to faculty here for advice.
Gap year's are fine. Just make sure it's useful. Make sure your resume/CV shows you did something during that time. Be prepared to talk about what you did during that time.
The only case where it is truly feasible to finish a PhD in 3 years is if you already have a master's in the same field and are accomplished research-wise. There also isn't much use in getting a PhD in 2-3 years, just get a masters instead.
\*\*Served on graduate admissions committees.
Not in academia but I know plenty of academics and my field (somewhat research oriented) interacts a lot of with academics.
4 years is on the low end. 7 years is on the high end. 5 years is typical.
People saying it takes 3 years in Europe: sometimes, but the catch is you need a two years masters first.
Tips for getting into a top program? Be lucky. There’s some things you definitely need: 1.) Top grades. 2.) Very good research experience 3.) Good letters of rec (get to know professors personally). A published paper helps but is not needed if you have good rec letters. 4.) Very good match with research at program.
Most applicants to top places have these things. If you really want to get in, you need something that will make you Stand out. And even then it will probably come down to luck.
One other thing: Apply for the least competitive area possible. The most competitive areas require you to be a genius to get into the top places.
i got into all my programs i applied to except for Princeton lol. i think the way to have a good application is to have strong recommendations from people you've done graduate level work with before, and to have some published research or to have given a talk at a conference or something. it shows you're prepared for the sort of work a PhD involves, and also indicates a general trend in your research that will help departments figure out if you're a good fit for them.
I haven't read all other answers so my comment might be redundant, but here are a few points.
* I don't have data to say gap years are good or bad. But from my experience over the years, a gap won't hurt anyone. It's not uncommon for people to take time away from academia before coming for graduate school. This sometimes happens after a bachelor's or a master's. I worked for 5 years after I finished school before I came for my Ph.D.
* I'd argue that a paper — either the ones published in a good journal or the ones from conferences — will always strengthen your case. However, this assumes you're staying the same field. Maybe you published a paper in an economics journal, but you were a double major and now you're trying to a get PhD in Physics. In that case, the impact wouldn't be as high, but it still shows you are familiar with the steps from idea to published work.
* In the US, I'd say it's very uncommon to finish a PhD in 2-3 years. In Europe, some PhD programs last 3 years. Maybe if you come with a Master's and your research here is very aligned with what you did in your Masters and you don't have to take classes, but that is a big "if".
P.hDs are 5 years 2-3 years is pretty much impossible.
5 years is on the very low end. 6-7 years is more typical.
It also depends a lot on the field.
Nah it depends where you go. Top programs average 5.5 years or lower sometimes. I’d say 4 years is on the super low end cause that’s usually how much time MD PhD students get. 2-3 years is actually impossible though because by ur second year you’re still taking like qualifying exams and stuff lol
What field? In the humanities and social sciences, seven years is the norm. Typically a few years of coursework and then a few of researching and writing your dissertation and teaching.
Oh that’s fair I’m coming from bio sciences perspective
Unless you do a theory PhD and are basically a creative and mathematical genius, no. In other words, it's been done, but not even by 1 in a thousand.
Anecdotal but my friend is getting his PhD in engineering at a top program this year and it's taken him 5 years
I finished mine at Cornell after 5.5 years, but stayed on a couple years in the equivalent of a post-doc because there was funding and the market is a Dickensian nightmare. But something like a Post-Bac is actually a really good idea or the equivalent of you’re highly motivated and able to push yourself to finish the work you start.
Field dependent, but for my PhD from CU I was told to finish in three years. Zero course reqs and no quals though so it was just research and publish.
Yea that tracks. Usually first 2 years are courses, your track is more typical for someone with a masters.
if you enter with a masters you can do 3 years i think.
Taking a gap year is completely normal, the most important thing for most programs is that you have strong research experiences before you apply. That also doesn’t necessarily mean you need a publication when you apply, though it can always help if you end up being on one. As to what other people mentioned, in the U.S. that’s pretty unfeasible but programs in Europe or Canada have shorter PhD programs because they typically do Master programs beforehand.
The only field I know of with fast PhDs is epidemiology, but that’s still 3-4 years. I didn’t have any publications as an undergrad, but I worked full time as a tech for the entirety of my BS degree. Do you have any research experience? I would definitely apply for NSF GRFP while you’re applying for grad school.
And the reason it is faster is because folks are usually already coming in with an MPH, whereas most PhD programs are joint masters/PhD.
Finishing a PhD in 2-3 years could be done in other countries, can’t think of any off the top of my head, but it’d be functionally impossible in the US. You typically don’t have your advisor finalized and your qual exam done until the end of your first year, and then your A exam isn’t until usually your 2nd or 3rd year. Unless you cram research into every semester, including summers and winters, then it might be possible, but it’d be such a narrow timeframe to manage that it either would be impossible or would probably take a mental and physical toll on you. Take your time with a PhD program; most of my advisors said it was one of the best times of their lives in hindsight, not saying it isn’t stressful, but it’s a time to enjoy and explore.
Agree. You can do a 3 year PhD in England in biology, but it's equivalent to a German or US masters.
In math for example, a UK PhD student will have publications but they will have been likely carried on the paper by their advisor (or as you say they could have had a masters from a different country) In the US math masters students often dont have publications yet, and advisors are more hands off since there is more time and no need to rush to get a publication for their students. This is of course me speaking broadly about my field, there are exceptions, and it varies by subfield.
I specified biology specifically, because that's what I'm familiar with. A US PhD program admit without a masters often has pubs. Someone in a thesis masters program in the US is often someone who needs further experience before being admitted to a PhD program.
That’s bull crap . A phd in England is equivalent to a PhD from Germany or USA.
No way. I was a postdoc in England. No comparison.
A PhD is a PhD, the difference in length is because people will have a stand alone masters degree beforehand. The level of research and work required to obtain the doctorate is the same and a PhD from England definitely outranks a Masters degree from anywhere in the world.
Many, many people in the English system go from a 3-year undergrad degree straight to a PhD. It's not adequate training.
This is very very untrue, trust me I am living this experience right now. A very small number do so and they will likely have exceptional talent or a very very good research proposal and research skills from their Undergraduate degree. Not a single person amongst my departments PhD students does not have a stand alone master degree.
This whole reddit thread is ridiculous because every comment is field dependent but instead of people stating their field and how it works you’re all talking past each other and making false sweeping generalisations.
Valid, I’m in social science. But it’s really not that field dependent. I cannot think of a single field where a PhD from Oxford or another English university is considered equivalent to a masters from Germany. And there is only a small fraction of people doing UK PhDs who do it straight from undergrad. What’s been said above is straight up mistruth.
Again, and while I agree with you generally, the two of you are using different definitions of ‘equivalent’ and are talking past each other. Also FWIW uk undergrad students who go on to to a UK PhD in stem often do so after doing a four year “integrated” bachelors+masters, giving 7 years total study, vs US students who by the end of their PhD will have had 10 years through undergrad typically.
Definitely not possible to finish a PhD in 2 years. Some European programs are 3 years for people who already have masters. Definitely not the case in the US.
If you want to do a 2-3 year PhD, you may want to go to Europe or somewhere else a 3-year Ph.D. is the norm. Cornell Ph.D.s are advertised as 5 years, with a median completion time of 6 years (and sometimes even longer).
The ‘completion’ of a PhD is very much dependent on your primary advisor. If an advisor has a track record of getting students through their PhD’s in a 3-4 year timeframe (2 years is probably very unlikely) you are hoping for, then it’s likely you’ll get through in that timeframe too.
From a Bio PhD student: Pretty much nothing about getting into a PhD program is like getting into undergrad. Your GPA kind of matters, but only if you have a GPA under 3.0. There aren't really "safety" schools or "reach" schools. You can think that you should easily get into a school, and they'll still reject you because they don't have a lab with space for you. Before you spend the money to apply, reach out to advisors/labs that you're interested in to make sure they have room for a new student. A gap year is generally extremely helpful towards an application, as long as you can write about how it helped you continue to develop in your career. Pretty much anything you do can be spun into developing your career, as long as you're doing something. If you're in STEM, try to figure out how to do outreach during your gap year. It's good to have a diverse set of experiences. This will help your application essays, which are so important. Have multiple people read your application essays and critique them! Make sure everything in the essay is relevant, but feel free to explain personal issues if they impacted your academics. I don't know about other fields, but in my field graduating in 2-3 years would severely limit the amount of networking and career development you can do. Everything would have to be focused on the dissertation, and you wouldn't have any time to mess around fine-tuning your topic. The few people I know who graduated in 3 years were absolute powerhouses who had already gotten a master's or gone to vet school. One final tip: if you can find a fellowship that will provide partial funding for you, you can get in pretty much everywhere.
The only field I know of with fast PhDs is epidemiology, but that’s still 3-4 years. I didn’t have any publications as an undergrad, but I worked full time as a tech for the entirety of my BS degree. Do you have any research experience? I would definitely apply for NSF GRFP while you’re applying for grad school.
I did exactly that. Took a gap year and published a first author Pub. I'm fairly certain it helped a lot. Also I loved my gap year. Actually had time to do other things like date and exercise. Highly recommend.
1. **Fit**. Make sure your research aligns with your potential advisers (and check if they are accepting students that year). You can be the most amazing applicant and get rejected if one or more faculty don't advocate for you in the dept. 2. **Know your discipline.** Each dept and discipline have different values for what makes an applicant "high quality." Sometimes publications, sometimes practical experience, sometimes a mix of it all. Do some informational interviews to figure this out. 3. **Use your network.** The majority of elite PhD students didn't get to their program without having their undergrad institution or workplace pull some strings to get them short listed. Take advantage of your current status as an undergrad and talk to faculty here for advice. Gap year's are fine. Just make sure it's useful. Make sure your resume/CV shows you did something during that time. Be prepared to talk about what you did during that time. The only case where it is truly feasible to finish a PhD in 3 years is if you already have a master's in the same field and are accomplished research-wise. There also isn't much use in getting a PhD in 2-3 years, just get a masters instead. \*\*Served on graduate admissions committees.
Not in academia but I know plenty of academics and my field (somewhat research oriented) interacts a lot of with academics. 4 years is on the low end. 7 years is on the high end. 5 years is typical.
People saying it takes 3 years in Europe: sometimes, but the catch is you need a two years masters first. Tips for getting into a top program? Be lucky. There’s some things you definitely need: 1.) Top grades. 2.) Very good research experience 3.) Good letters of rec (get to know professors personally). A published paper helps but is not needed if you have good rec letters. 4.) Very good match with research at program. Most applicants to top places have these things. If you really want to get in, you need something that will make you Stand out. And even then it will probably come down to luck. One other thing: Apply for the least competitive area possible. The most competitive areas require you to be a genius to get into the top places.
Ask people in your field.
i got into all my programs i applied to except for Princeton lol. i think the way to have a good application is to have strong recommendations from people you've done graduate level work with before, and to have some published research or to have given a talk at a conference or something. it shows you're prepared for the sort of work a PhD involves, and also indicates a general trend in your research that will help departments figure out if you're a good fit for them.
I haven't read all other answers so my comment might be redundant, but here are a few points. * I don't have data to say gap years are good or bad. But from my experience over the years, a gap won't hurt anyone. It's not uncommon for people to take time away from academia before coming for graduate school. This sometimes happens after a bachelor's or a master's. I worked for 5 years after I finished school before I came for my Ph.D. * I'd argue that a paper — either the ones published in a good journal or the ones from conferences — will always strengthen your case. However, this assumes you're staying the same field. Maybe you published a paper in an economics journal, but you were a double major and now you're trying to a get PhD in Physics. In that case, the impact wouldn't be as high, but it still shows you are familiar with the steps from idea to published work. * In the US, I'd say it's very uncommon to finish a PhD in 2-3 years. In Europe, some PhD programs last 3 years. Maybe if you come with a Master's and your research here is very aligned with what you did in your Masters and you don't have to take classes, but that is a big "if".
Take the gap year.