4 ms·

I feel that the US PhD system is extremely bad not for students, but for human beings. Other countries like Australia or Germany have a much more stringent time

I feel that the US PhD system is extremely bad not for students, but for human beings. Other countries like Australia or Germany have a much more stringent timeplan - maybe 4 years, usually 3 years. I often talk to researchers from the US and it's always 7, 8 years spent, with maybe one publication, or even 0 - the time is spent interning, or drifting between departments, taking various university courses that really lead nowhere (like OP), or drifting along without a real project, or you're the cheap work monkey of the supervisor (the last one seems to be extremely common in the US). I think that's the universities' fault - Australian unis force you to have a project proposal after the 6 or 12 months mark, and then you have about a year or two to do that project, then you have to write. There is very little time to do courses, and if you take a course, you lose one out of 3 possible time extensions. If you don't make it in time your student visa will expire (I think maximum is 4 years?) and you have to leave the country. If you're a citizen your scholarship will end at the same time. And these are good scholarships, usually about $500-700 per week. My PhD experience was nothing like OP's or yours, much more focused, much less time wasted, much more publications too! I think our bioinformatics group's record was 12 papers in one PhD (3 first author). I had 2 first author and a few more middle author papers, one of them in Science.

munin 11y ago
the strict timeline can be a lie. yeah, on paper, you have a 3 year plan, but it fails most of the time so students wind up taking unpaid years to finish.
- a_bonobo 11y ago
  In my area, no-one has failed their 3 year plan yet, maybe up to 4 years taken - our area has very little Australian citizens so the incentives are large. (there's an obvious Soviet joke here about 3 year plans)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- danieldk 11y ago
  I did my PhD in The Netherlands. In my field (computational linguistics), the majority of people finished within the allotted four years. The working conditions are good: PhDs are generally employed as regular employees with vacation money and 13th month. The teaching duties were very light (typically TAing and later teaching one 7-week course), giving you a lot of time to focus on research.
- programLyrique 11y ago
  Same in France: all the PhD students in computer science I know have finished in 3 years, or 3 years and 6 months (you can request a 6 month extension). You can't carry on after that duration because you have to be funded and be full-time (so no side job).
  - emeryberger 11y ago
    FWIW, these (IMHO absurdly) short PhD programs basically mean you need to do a postdoc for your CV to even be competitive with US CS PhDs -- assuming you want to do research in a top institution or research lab. So it's far from an obvious optimization.
    - alphydan 11y ago
      That was not my experience. I did a PhD in quantum physics in the UK (Imperial College) in 3 years + 6 month extension. I collaborated with Oxford University and I was able to publish in Nature Physics, PRL, etc ... (in other words, the top journals in the field). I was offered post-doc positions but eventually went to industry. I really enjoyed my PhD as a time to learn and think about deep and difficult questions. Regarding employment, I think it shows that you can commit to a problem. It shows perseverance and drive. And those are good skill to have at any technical job.
      - emeryberger 11y ago
        My comments should be interpreted as applying to PhD studies in Computer Science.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      The view from Europe is that since students in US PhD programs spend their first two years doing courses they come out with similar actual research experience.
      - emeryberger 11y ago
        The view is wrong. In computer science -- at least at top programs -- students begin research immediately.
nikofeyn 11y ago
i am in the US but have looked abroad for a ph.d. program. there's one in germany that is in english. it is meant to attract students across the world and not just the US. US students are actually rare in the program. but back to my original point, the program has no teaching duties, tutoring or anything of the sort. the coursework requirements are very straightforward and not bloated. it has a very strict timeline, but that's great. you spend 3-4 four years doing nothing but your work, with both an advisor and a supervisor separate from your advisor. it's a great system. i've applied before but went to a US school. i ended dropping out of that ph.d. program with my master's. i sort of wish i hadn't have been in a relationship at the time of going to graduate school as i might have done the german program. in graduate school, i learned a lot...in the first year. after the fire hose of the first year, i was rather tired of courses, but still had to take 3 full-time courses while teaching and tutoring. ignoring the fact that there were almost no advisors to choose from (that you'd want as an advisor), i had no time to pursue anything being bogged down with homework and exams, which became very tedious. any time i was trying to read on my own, i couldn't concentrate because i knew i had homework and exams to study for. i went to graduate school based upon a very enjoyable NSF REU. that was fantastic because you picked a problem at the beginning and spent the whole summer working on that as your project. it ended with writing a paper and most of us presented at conferences later in the year. it was an absolutely fantastic experience that had no parallel when i was in my ph.d. program. and my "failure" in graduate school was even from someone who had never failed on anything. it was like hitting quicksand. i had even read up a lot on how to be successful in graduate school, but it didn't matter. i left because i was miserable and earning $15,000 a year. a mere 6 months or so after leaving i had a job paying $70,000. it would have been sooner, but i was an idiot and thought i'd go back and finish a second bachelor's since i had taken so many courses as an undergrad.
lmeyerov 11y ago
The primary output of a PhD is not a good project -- it's actually the European system that's geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea. Instead, the output of the US system is researchers capable of forging their own path. No surprise Jean landed a professorship at CMU after all this. That's useful for anyone in a thought leadership role, e.g., PI/CEO/CTO. (Though yes, for related reasons, US CS systems PhDs probably also have a higher impact factor, e.g., they're actually implemented as is discussed in her post.) As for the bean counting: her first-author PLDI best paper is the field's equivalent of a Nature paper, and she got one in her first year.
- mafribe 11y ago
  geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea. I am not sure the phrase "quick cheap labour" really gets to the heart of the matter. The real reason why most PhD students work on their supervisor's ideas is different. Most students would drown in the ocean of possible ideas, would simply fail without strong guidance from an experienced supervisor. It's probably best to see a PhD as a warm-up exercise for future research. The ocean of previous research one must master before being able to do original research in mature fields is simply so large that most students can't handle it on their own. Supervisors would love PhD-students who are intellectually mature enough to come up with their own ideas and execute them to a publishable standard. In my experience, at best 1 in 5 PhD students can do this. I used to think my own PhD work was 100% self-invented. But now, having supervised a lot of my own students, I see clearly how my intellectual mentor gently nudged me in the right direction at all critical junctions where I would have gone astray otherwise. Without him, I too would have failed. US PhD typically last a lot longer than UK PhDs, so comparing the two is difficult. I'd say UK PhD+postdoc is a probably comparable with an US PhD.
- chrisseaton 11y ago
  > it's actually the European system that's geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea Hmm I thought it was the other way around. In the UK PhD students rarely do work for their supervisors like teaching undergraduate courses, which seems to happen a lot in the US. When I started my PhD in the UK I was told I needed to come up with my own project from the start. I only did one paper that was sort of related to my supervisor's project, and I only did a hundred hours teaching over my entire PhD, and that was voluntary. The other big difference between the US and UK PhD approaches is that in the UK a PhD student doesn't do any courses. Day one on the PhD is day one working towards their research project and thesis.
peterkelly 11y ago
In Australia it's officially 3 years (with an optional 6 month extension), but out of all other students I knew in grad school there was only one that finished in this time (I'm not sure she ever left her office in that time). I took 7 years, which was not uncommon in my department. What usually happens is that after the three years (+ extension if you're lucky) is up, you don't have a scholarship any more, and for most people this means they have to find a job to support themselves, which leaves little to no time to work on the thesis. I was fortunate enough to get a teaching position at the same university, but even that was very demanding and my progress slowed to a crawl, though I did eventually manage to finish. Universities only get paid if the student completes, so they tend to be pretty flexible. If they kick you out at the three year mark they lose; if there's indications you're likely to complete at some point, they have a chance of getting paid, so there's some flexibility here. I came to the conclusion that ultimately the timeframe doesn't matter - what counts is that you get it done; it takes as long as it takes. A friend of mine was at it for 20 years, but eventually finished. University administration were not exactly pleased with this timeframe and she went through a lot of difficulties because of this, but a remark she made once really stuck to me: "You succeed in spite of the system, not because of it". Caveat: Both of us are Australian citizens; I can see how the limit would be extremely problematic for international students due to visa rules.
- stdbrouw 11y ago
  > I came to the conclusion that ultimately the timeframe doesn't matter - what counts is that you get it done That seems like a bizarre bit of reasoning. When I go grocery shopping, the important part is that it gets done, but that doesn't mean I want to be stuck in the store for five years. At a certain point the cost/benefit ratio becomes insane, not just from a financial point of view but academically as well.
  - peterkelly 11y ago
    It sounds bizarre as a starting point, but several years in having still not completed, I decided to adopt this attitude as a way of avoiding the immense stress about the thing taking so long. Forgetting about the timeframe and focusing on doing whatever it took (and persisting as long as necessary) is what got me through. Completing was important enough to me that I wasn't going to give up.
throw3217321 11y ago
Some European PhDs are worthless. Dr. med and Dr. jur (medicine and law) are a joke in Germany. You can obtain a Dr. med after one year of injecting $random_substance into mice and repeating the "experiment" until the p-values spit out by Excel are sufficient for the "thesis" to pass. PhDs in e.g. Physics are harder though.
- stdbrouw 11y ago
  Oxford also puts PhD students on a pretty strict timeline. I don't think an Oxford PhD is a joke.
- MagnumOpus 11y ago
  Dr.med. and Dr.jur. are not the equivalents of PhD/DPhil, they are the equivalents of MD and JD degrees, which in terms of research output are also a joke in anglo-saxon countries. In the US, medical doctors who wants to pursue medical research usually do a PhD _on top_ of their MD degree.

munin 11y ago

the strict timeline can be a lie. yeah, on paper, you have a 3 year plan, but it fails most of the time so students wind up taking unpaid years to finish.

a_bonobo 11y ago
In my area, no-one has failed their 3 year plan yet, maybe up to 4 years taken - our area has very little Australian citizens so the incentives are large. (there's an obvious Soviet joke here about 3 year plans)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
danieldk 11y ago
I did my PhD in The Netherlands. In my field (computational linguistics), the majority of people finished within the allotted four years. The working conditions are good: PhDs are generally employed as regular employees with vacation money and 13th month. The teaching duties were very light (typically TAing and later teaching one 7-week course), giving you a lot of time to focus on research.
programLyrique 11y ago
Same in France: all the PhD students in computer science I know have finished in 3 years, or 3 years and 6 months (you can request a 6 month extension). You can't carry on after that duration because you have to be funded and be full-time (so no side job).
- emeryberger 11y ago
  FWIW, these (IMHO absurdly) short PhD programs basically mean you need to do a postdoc for your CV to even be competitive with US CS PhDs -- assuming you want to do research in a top institution or research lab. So it's far from an obvious optimization.
  - alphydan 11y ago
    That was not my experience. I did a PhD in quantum physics in the UK (Imperial College) in 3 years + 6 month extension. I collaborated with Oxford University and I was able to publish in Nature Physics, PRL, etc ... (in other words, the top journals in the field). I was offered post-doc positions but eventually went to industry. I really enjoyed my PhD as a time to learn and think about deep and difficult questions. Regarding employment, I think it shows that you can commit to a problem. It shows perseverance and drive. And those are good skill to have at any technical job.
    - emeryberger 11y ago
      My comments should be interpreted as applying to PhD studies in Computer Science.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    The view from Europe is that since students in US PhD programs spend their first two years doing courses they come out with similar actual research experience.
    - emeryberger 11y ago
      The view is wrong. In computer science -- at least at top programs -- students begin research immediately.

nikofeyn 11y ago

i am in the US but have looked abroad for a ph.d. program. there's one in germany that is in english. it is meant to attract students across the world and not just the US. US students are actually rare in the program. but back to my original point, the program has no teaching duties, tutoring or anything of the sort. the coursework requirements are very straightforward and not bloated. it has a very strict timeline, but that's great. you spend 3-4 four years doing nothing but your work, with both an advisor and a supervisor separate from your advisor. it's a great system. i've applied before but went to a US school. i ended dropping out of that ph.d. program with my master's. i sort of wish i hadn't have been in a relationship at the time of going to graduate school as i might have done the german program. in graduate school, i learned a lot...in the first year. after the fire hose of the first year, i was rather tired of courses, but still had to take 3 full-time courses while teaching and tutoring. ignoring the fact that there were almost no advisors to choose from (that you'd want as an advisor), i had no time to pursue anything being bogged down with homework and exams, which became very tedious. any time i was trying to read on my own, i couldn't concentrate because i knew i had homework and exams to study for. i went to graduate school based upon a very enjoyable NSF REU. that was fantastic because you picked a problem at the beginning and spent the whole summer working on that as your project. it ended with writing a paper and most of us presented at conferences later in the year. it was an absolutely fantastic experience that had no parallel when i was in my ph.d. program. and my "failure" in graduate school was even from someone who had never failed on anything. it was like hitting quicksand. i had even read up a lot on how to be successful in graduate school, but it didn't matter. i left because i was miserable and earning $15,000 a year. a mere 6 months or so after leaving i had a job paying $70,000. it would have been sooner, but i was an idiot and thought i'd go back and finish a second bachelor's since i had taken so many courses as an undergrad.

lmeyerov 11y ago

The primary output of a PhD is not a good project -- it's actually the European system that's geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea. Instead, the output of the US system is researchers capable of forging their own path. No surprise Jean landed a professorship at CMU after all this. That's useful for anyone in a thought leadership role, e.g., PI/CEO/CTO. (Though yes, for related reasons, US CS systems PhDs probably also have a higher impact factor, e.g., they're actually implemented as is discussed in her post.) As for the bean counting: her first-author PLDI best paper is the field's equivalent of a Nature paper, and she got one in her first year.

mafribe 11y ago
geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea. I am not sure the phrase "quick cheap labour" really gets to the heart of the matter. The real reason why most PhD students work on their supervisor's ideas is different. Most students would drown in the ocean of possible ideas, would simply fail without strong guidance from an experienced supervisor. It's probably best to see a PhD as a warm-up exercise for future research. The ocean of previous research one must master before being able to do original research in mature fields is simply so large that most students can't handle it on their own. Supervisors would love PhD-students who are intellectually mature enough to come up with their own ideas and execute them to a publishable standard. In my experience, at best 1 in 5 PhD students can do this. I used to think my own PhD work was 100% self-invented. But now, having supervised a lot of my own students, I see clearly how my intellectual mentor gently nudged me in the right direction at all critical junctions where I would have gone astray otherwise. Without him, I too would have failed. US PhD typically last a lot longer than UK PhDs, so comparing the two is difficult. I'd say UK PhD+postdoc is a probably comparable with an US PhD.
chrisseaton 11y ago
> it's actually the European system that's geared towards quick cheap labor for the PI's idea Hmm I thought it was the other way around. In the UK PhD students rarely do work for their supervisors like teaching undergraduate courses, which seems to happen a lot in the US. When I started my PhD in the UK I was told I needed to come up with my own project from the start. I only did one paper that was sort of related to my supervisor's project, and I only did a hundred hours teaching over my entire PhD, and that was voluntary. The other big difference between the US and UK PhD approaches is that in the UK a PhD student doesn't do any courses. Day one on the PhD is day one working towards their research project and thesis.

peterkelly 11y ago

In Australia it's officially 3 years (with an optional 6 month extension), but out of all other students I knew in grad school there was only one that finished in this time (I'm not sure she ever left her office in that time). I took 7 years, which was not uncommon in my department. What usually happens is that after the three years (+ extension if you're lucky) is up, you don't have a scholarship any more, and for most people this means they have to find a job to support themselves, which leaves little to no time to work on the thesis. I was fortunate enough to get a teaching position at the same university, but even that was very demanding and my progress slowed to a crawl, though I did eventually manage to finish. Universities only get paid if the student completes, so they tend to be pretty flexible. If they kick you out at the three year mark they lose; if there's indications you're likely to complete at some point, they have a chance of getting paid, so there's some flexibility here. I came to the conclusion that ultimately the timeframe doesn't matter - what counts is that you get it done; it takes as long as it takes. A friend of mine was at it for 20 years, but eventually finished. University administration were not exactly pleased with this timeframe and she went through a lot of difficulties because of this, but a remark she made once really stuck to me: "You succeed in spite of the system, not because of it". Caveat: Both of us are Australian citizens; I can see how the limit would be extremely problematic for international students due to visa rules.

stdbrouw 11y ago
> I came to the conclusion that ultimately the timeframe doesn't matter - what counts is that you get it done That seems like a bizarre bit of reasoning. When I go grocery shopping, the important part is that it gets done, but that doesn't mean I want to be stuck in the store for five years. At a certain point the cost/benefit ratio becomes insane, not just from a financial point of view but academically as well.
- peterkelly 11y ago
  It sounds bizarre as a starting point, but several years in having still not completed, I decided to adopt this attitude as a way of avoiding the immense stress about the thing taking so long. Forgetting about the timeframe and focusing on doing whatever it took (and persisting as long as necessary) is what got me through. Completing was important enough to me that I wasn't going to give up.

throw3217321 11y ago

Some European PhDs are worthless. Dr. med and Dr. jur (medicine and law) are a joke in Germany. You can obtain a Dr. med after one year of injecting $random_substance into mice and repeating the "experiment" until the p-values spit out by Excel are sufficient for the "thesis" to pass. PhDs in e.g. Physics are harder though.

stdbrouw 11y ago
Oxford also puts PhD students on a pretty strict timeline. I don't think an Oxford PhD is a joke.
MagnumOpus 11y ago
Dr.med. and Dr.jur. are not the equivalents of PhD/DPhil, they are the equivalents of MD and JD degrees, which in terms of research output are also a joke in anglo-saxon countries. In the US, medical doctors who wants to pursue medical research usually do a PhD _on top_ of their MD degree.