6 ms·

Speaking as someone who has graduated over a dozen PhD students in computer science... Yes, it is possible to complete a PhD in 3-4 years, but it's not really

Speaking as someone who has graduated over a dozen PhD students in computer science... Yes, it is possible to complete a PhD in 3-4 years, but it's not really good for your career. The bar our department sets for a PhD is that at the end of it, you should be a world expert in your specific topic. A PhD is more like an apprenticeship, where you develop and refine your skills, your background knowledge in your area of specialization, your ability to write and do presentations, and your taste in research problems. These are all things take a lot of time to mature. The problem with graduating fast is that (a) you wouldn't be able to do internships, (b) you would severely limit your ability to grow your social network (via workshops, conferences, internships, department service, etc), (c) you would limit your ability to deepen and broaden your portfolio of research, and (d) you limit the time your ideas have to percolate out into the rest of the research community and industry. While I can't speak directly about your friend's experiences, learning how to do peer review and learning how to write first drafts are really important skills that can indirectly help with coming up and executing on a dissertation idea.

genxy 5mo ago
I agree with all those things, but we should be starting that training in middle school. Deconstructing arguments, making reports, giving presentations, solving open ended questions. Many of these things involve a modest amount of critical thinking, prediction and self-reflection.
drapado 5mo ago
Are those PhDs being paid with a decent salary? If not, I can’t agree with your statement. PS. I did my PhD in an EU country where it’s treated as another researcher job with salary and benefits
- dekhn 5mo ago
  PhD candidates in the US usually get somewhere between $25K and $50K stipend, also some level of benefits (typically health care). Sometimes there is a tuition waiver (student does not need to pay grad program tuition). In my case I was making $32K/year with a tuition waiver and health benefits around ~2000, in SF, which was barely enough to rent a shared apartment and eat food. The only way I could rationalize it is that I was maximizing my future freedom (job choice).
  - lovich 5mo ago
    Wait, some PhD candidates are being paid near minimum wage and are still paying their university to do work for their university? That just sounds like indentured servitude with extra steps.
    - dekhn 5mo ago
      Yes, I suppose you could try to justify it as "this is the price you pay for having the freedom to build your own research plan in the future" ("maximizing your future freedom") but in reality, this just sets you up for more of the same- getting a faculty position (pre-tenure) with a low salary, and immense pressure to bring in funds via research grants/publish papers. I eventually tired of the process and moved to industry because the struggle wasn't worth it.
    - canjobear 5mo ago
      PhD students paying tuition would be highly unusual.
      - CrazyStat 5mo ago
        In STEM fields, yes. In humanities it’s not uncommon.
      - zipy124 5mo ago
        No it's typical. It's just that your stipend is usually just x amount of Dollars + whatever tuition is so you never have to care what it is and you don't pay it directly per se, it's just included in your stipend. Someone pays for it at the end of the day though.
  - knappe 5mo ago
    Yeah, I distinctionly remember a postdoc I knew who was irrationally excited to move to a role where they were going to get paid $35k, in 2010s money, and they were damn excited about it. And they were moving to a high cost of living area (from a high cost of living area). I was utterly flabbergasted because they were very smart, very technical and should have been earning 5-10x that. I feel like they didn't know what they were worth and academia had utterly failed to teach them that. I don't know how they paid any of their accumulated (I assume) student debt, let alone had an even decent standard of living.
nomadygnt 5mo ago
Taking a longer time to graduate to become the “world expert” in their field is fine if grad students weren’t paid next to nothing for the 60+ hours a week that they are expected to work. As it is now it’s better to finish as quickly as possible so they can have a real life.
- garciasn 5mo ago
  Isn’t this sort of how all terminal degrees work? MDs, JDs, etc are all putting the candidates through the wringer, for relatively low wages, until they’re “experienced”. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s common knowledge it’s the way things work if you want to have those magic letters of a terminal degree next to your name in your email signature. Don’t want to deal with the machinations required? Opt for the masters track or just get an Undergraduate degree and spend 20y working your way up.
  - ohyoutravel 5mo ago
    Masters in Law so you can…pontificate about the law?
  - nomadygnt 5mo ago
    Yes, but I think as time goes on, fewer and fewer people are going to consider those letters next to their name worth it for the years that they need to invest. So, I am just saying that if MIT or whoever else is worried about having fewer grad students (not saying that they/we should be), then maybe it's time to change how it works.
  - xhevahir 5mo ago
    JD isn't a terminal degree. There's two higher degrees I think. MDs and JDs are professional professional qualifications, which makes their situation a bit different from purely academic degrees. For example the ABA acts kind of like a cartel. I don't think I disagree with you, by the way. I'm just more unhappy about it. All of these sclerotic, even corrupt, institutions acting like aging vats for talented youth, all to exclude newcomers and to maintain hierarchies...they're not ideal.
mxkopy 5mo ago
It’s also a set of credentials, which might be immediately useful for one reason or other. All those other things you can do outside of a program, especially if you’ve already got the network or career trajectory to support it.
bragr 5mo ago
>but it's not really good for your career Can you define that with more specificity? I find that academics have a major blind spot where good career means "the path I took" to the exclusion of all other paths. >Speaking as someone who has graduated over a dozen PhD students in computer science And your CV says another 6 dropped out. What was good for their careers?
- caminante 5mo ago
  He appears to be tunnel-visioning on academia. The vast majority (>75%) of Computer Science PhDs leave academia. [0] Becoming a "world expert in a specific topic" is overfitting skills for a sub-niche of a specific career. There certainly aren't enough jobs in academia. [0] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/213640/what-ratio-of-phd-graduates-in-cs-fields-ultimately-get-tenured-professors https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/213640/what-rat...
  - cvwright 5mo ago
    You’re arguing that we have too many PhD students in CS, not too few. I agree with you fwiw.
    - foobarian 5mo ago
      A research professor typically graduates dozens of PhD students. Perhaps there was a post-war bootstrapping period where every one of those students got a tenured position somewhere, and in turn also trained dozens of PhD students; but it's pretty obvious it's not realistic to expect this to continue indefinitely. We're way past saturation right now. Certainly very few are going to get their own tenured positions, and as for the rest, it depends on the winds of funding availability in industry.
  - CrazyStat 5mo ago
    The goal of a PhD is to become a world expert in a specific topic, whether or not you’re planning on staying in academia. This may or may not be in alignment with the student’s goals, and many students don’t really understand it going in.
bouh 5mo ago
In France STEM PhD are expected to last 3 year and the funding is sized like that. It is also considered as a job. It is only done if salary is funded in most cases. Often it spill over a bit and I guess France travail (French job agency managing insurance for people losing their job) should often be cited /thanked in Phd student thesis for funding the final steps of their manuscript. There are limited internship culture during the phd itself Afaik. However phd is never started at Bachelor level, only after Msc that last two years and requires an internship or research projet. I heard a person saying a bit like you that it is not enough to grow a Real expert though compared to US phd. But Oftentimes postdoc always follow for Longer and longer
BeetleB 5mo ago
A very US-centric perspective. Whereas the folks in Europe do it in 3-4 years, come to the US and do a 2-3 year postdoc (with higher pay than a PhD student), and are ahead of their American peers. Also, depending on where you do it in Europe, the pay as a PhD student is higher. At the extreme end, I knew students getting paid $60K/year in one country, while I was getting $24K/year in the US.
- EvgeniyZh 5mo ago
  With 2 years master's before for the same total?
  - a_f 5mo ago
    In the UK I started a (3 year) PhD program without a Masters. It was not untypical.
  - BeetleB 5mo ago
    Varies from place to place. In some countries, the PhD program is fixed at 3 years. You either graduate by then, or you're out (in reality, they give some option for you to pay to continue, but almost no one can afford it). I suspect in those places, people have done a 2 year MS.
  - lowbloodsugar 5mo ago
    A US thing again? My friends all did 3 year bachelors, 3 year PhD. Some dragged out the PhD to 4. Those who do a masters do it in one year, and typically don't do a PhD. Some undergrad courses are 4 year and you get a masters at the end. And my UK bachelors was recognized as equivalent to a US masters degree for visa purposes.
    - EvgeniyZh 5mo ago
      Maybe this is CS-specific? Finishing physics PhD from high school in 6 years sounds just not enough time. Even exceptional people I know in my field needed at least 7-8 (3+4 or 3+2+3). 3 years into theoretical physics grad school is around the time people start doing decent research
sourcinnamon 5mo ago
I agree that completing a PhD under the time originally agreed may not be good, as you lose some of the learning opportunities that come with the apprenticeship (yes, it is) program. However, taking more time than the standard length, whatever it is depending on the university or country where you are pursuing the title, is also something universities and specially PIs should be actively avoiding. Maybe I have this view because I got mine in NL, where a PhD is a job with a defined length (4 years) and if you go over it, you don't get paid. So yes, it is an apprenticeship, but you should not be doing work for free in any case. Becoming an expert and the (relative) independence on how to do your research are of course selling points of the PhD, but a job is a job.
mathisfun123 5mo ago
> Yes, it is possible to complete a PhD in 3-4 years, but it's not really good for your career. this is such a "trust me bro it's good for you" con. i graduated in 3.5 years and went directly to FAANG where i make 2x the highest paid TT at the T10 school i graduated from. do you really have the gall to tell me that it wasn't good for my career to accelerate my PhD and thereby minimize its cost (i.e., opportunity cost). > A PhD is more like an apprenticeship the vast majority of advisors have no skills other than how to hack the pub game. they literally have zero clue about the research. the remainder are the "exceptions that prove the rule".
setopt 5mo ago
All of the things you mention can also be done as a PostDoc. Which might be even better for social networking, broadening your research portfolio, etc. than staying in a single PhD position for the duration of a PhD + PostDoc.
hgoel 5mo ago
>The bar our department sets for a PhD is that at the end of it, you should be a world expert in your specific topic. In my opinion and from my experience, this is an odd expectation considering that a PhD is the absolute beginner career stage in research. It's the equivalent of being trusted to not mess up the morning coffee run. A PhD is only indicative of having demonstrated the ability to complete research to a level that satisfies other researchers. Many of the things you describe are things one is expected to learn in their postdoc and as a junior researcher. I finished mine (computer engineering) in ~5 years, practically 7 since I transferred near the end of a 2 year masters program. I was/am blessed with a good supervisor though.
twbarr 5mo ago
As much as I would have loved to get out in sooner than six years, I tend to agree. In hindsight, if I'd treated it like a job and just done the coding and writing necessary to get the projects I published out the door, I could have done it in three, maybe two. But that would have missed the whole point.

genxy 5mo ago

I agree with all those things, but we should be starting that training in middle school. Deconstructing arguments, making reports, giving presentations, solving open ended questions. Many of these things involve a modest amount of critical thinking, prediction and self-reflection.

drapado 5mo ago

Are those PhDs being paid with a decent salary? If not, I can’t agree with your statement. PS. I did my PhD in an EU country where it’s treated as another researcher job with salary and benefits

dekhn 5mo ago
PhD candidates in the US usually get somewhere between $25K and $50K stipend, also some level of benefits (typically health care). Sometimes there is a tuition waiver (student does not need to pay grad program tuition). In my case I was making $32K/year with a tuition waiver and health benefits around ~2000, in SF, which was barely enough to rent a shared apartment and eat food. The only way I could rationalize it is that I was maximizing my future freedom (job choice).
- lovich 5mo ago
  Wait, some PhD candidates are being paid near minimum wage and are still paying their university to do work for their university? That just sounds like indentured servitude with extra steps.
  - dekhn 5mo ago
    Yes, I suppose you could try to justify it as "this is the price you pay for having the freedom to build your own research plan in the future" ("maximizing your future freedom") but in reality, this just sets you up for more of the same- getting a faculty position (pre-tenure) with a low salary, and immense pressure to bring in funds via research grants/publish papers. I eventually tired of the process and moved to industry because the struggle wasn't worth it.
  - canjobear 5mo ago
    PhD students paying tuition would be highly unusual.
    - CrazyStat 5mo ago
      In STEM fields, yes. In humanities it’s not uncommon.
    - zipy124 5mo ago
      No it's typical. It's just that your stipend is usually just x amount of Dollars + whatever tuition is so you never have to care what it is and you don't pay it directly per se, it's just included in your stipend. Someone pays for it at the end of the day though.
- knappe 5mo ago
  Yeah, I distinctionly remember a postdoc I knew who was irrationally excited to move to a role where they were going to get paid $35k, in 2010s money, and they were damn excited about it. And they were moving to a high cost of living area (from a high cost of living area). I was utterly flabbergasted because they were very smart, very technical and should have been earning 5-10x that. I feel like they didn't know what they were worth and academia had utterly failed to teach them that. I don't know how they paid any of their accumulated (I assume) student debt, let alone had an even decent standard of living.

nomadygnt 5mo ago

Taking a longer time to graduate to become the “world expert” in their field is fine if grad students weren’t paid next to nothing for the 60+ hours a week that they are expected to work. As it is now it’s better to finish as quickly as possible so they can have a real life.

garciasn 5mo ago
Isn’t this sort of how all terminal degrees work? MDs, JDs, etc are all putting the candidates through the wringer, for relatively low wages, until they’re “experienced”. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s common knowledge it’s the way things work if you want to have those magic letters of a terminal degree next to your name in your email signature. Don’t want to deal with the machinations required? Opt for the masters track or just get an Undergraduate degree and spend 20y working your way up.
- ohyoutravel 5mo ago
  Masters in Law so you can…pontificate about the law?
- nomadygnt 5mo ago
  Yes, but I think as time goes on, fewer and fewer people are going to consider those letters next to their name worth it for the years that they need to invest. So, I am just saying that if MIT or whoever else is worried about having fewer grad students (not saying that they/we should be), then maybe it's time to change how it works.
- xhevahir 5mo ago
  JD isn't a terminal degree. There's two higher degrees I think. MDs and JDs are professional professional qualifications, which makes their situation a bit different from purely academic degrees. For example the ABA acts kind of like a cartel. I don't think I disagree with you, by the way. I'm just more unhappy about it. All of these sclerotic, even corrupt, institutions acting like aging vats for talented youth, all to exclude newcomers and to maintain hierarchies...they're not ideal.

mxkopy 5mo ago

It’s also a set of credentials, which might be immediately useful for one reason or other. All those other things you can do outside of a program, especially if you’ve already got the network or career trajectory to support it.

bragr 5mo ago

>but it's not really good for your career Can you define that with more specificity? I find that academics have a major blind spot where good career means "the path I took" to the exclusion of all other paths. >Speaking as someone who has graduated over a dozen PhD students in computer science And your CV says another 6 dropped out. What was good for their careers?

caminante 5mo ago
He appears to be tunnel-visioning on academia. The vast majority (>75%) of Computer Science PhDs leave academia. [0] Becoming a "world expert in a specific topic" is overfitting skills for a sub-niche of a specific career. There certainly aren't enough jobs in academia. [0] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/213640/what-ratio-of-phd-graduates-in-cs-fields-ultimately-get-tenured-professors https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/213640/what-rat...
- cvwright 5mo ago
  You’re arguing that we have too many PhD students in CS, not too few. I agree with you fwiw.
  - foobarian 5mo ago
    A research professor typically graduates dozens of PhD students. Perhaps there was a post-war bootstrapping period where every one of those students got a tenured position somewhere, and in turn also trained dozens of PhD students; but it's pretty obvious it's not realistic to expect this to continue indefinitely. We're way past saturation right now. Certainly very few are going to get their own tenured positions, and as for the rest, it depends on the winds of funding availability in industry.
- CrazyStat 5mo ago
  The goal of a PhD is to become a world expert in a specific topic, whether or not you’re planning on staying in academia. This may or may not be in alignment with the student’s goals, and many students don’t really understand it going in.

bouh 5mo ago

In France STEM PhD are expected to last 3 year and the funding is sized like that. It is also considered as a job. It is only done if salary is funded in most cases. Often it spill over a bit and I guess France travail (French job agency managing insurance for people losing their job) should often be cited /thanked in Phd student thesis for funding the final steps of their manuscript. There are limited internship culture during the phd itself Afaik. However phd is never started at Bachelor level, only after Msc that last two years and requires an internship or research projet. I heard a person saying a bit like you that it is not enough to grow a Real expert though compared to US phd. But Oftentimes postdoc always follow for Longer and longer

BeetleB 5mo ago

A very US-centric perspective. Whereas the folks in Europe do it in 3-4 years, come to the US and do a 2-3 year postdoc (with higher pay than a PhD student), and are ahead of their American peers. Also, depending on where you do it in Europe, the pay as a PhD student is higher. At the extreme end, I knew students getting paid $60K/year in one country, while I was getting $24K/year in the US.

EvgeniyZh 5mo ago
With 2 years master's before for the same total?
- a_f 5mo ago
  In the UK I started a (3 year) PhD program without a Masters. It was not untypical.
- BeetleB 5mo ago
  Varies from place to place. In some countries, the PhD program is fixed at 3 years. You either graduate by then, or you're out (in reality, they give some option for you to pay to continue, but almost no one can afford it). I suspect in those places, people have done a 2 year MS.
- lowbloodsugar 5mo ago
  A US thing again? My friends all did 3 year bachelors, 3 year PhD. Some dragged out the PhD to 4. Those who do a masters do it in one year, and typically don't do a PhD. Some undergrad courses are 4 year and you get a masters at the end. And my UK bachelors was recognized as equivalent to a US masters degree for visa purposes.
  - EvgeniyZh 5mo ago
    Maybe this is CS-specific? Finishing physics PhD from high school in 6 years sounds just not enough time. Even exceptional people I know in my field needed at least 7-8 (3+4 or 3+2+3). 3 years into theoretical physics grad school is around the time people start doing decent research

sourcinnamon 5mo ago

I agree that completing a PhD under the time originally agreed may not be good, as you lose some of the learning opportunities that come with the apprenticeship (yes, it is) program. However, taking more time than the standard length, whatever it is depending on the university or country where you are pursuing the title, is also something universities and specially PIs should be actively avoiding. Maybe I have this view because I got mine in NL, where a PhD is a job with a defined length (4 years) and if you go over it, you don't get paid. So yes, it is an apprenticeship, but you should not be doing work for free in any case. Becoming an expert and the (relative) independence on how to do your research are of course selling points of the PhD, but a job is a job.

mathisfun123 5mo ago

> Yes, it is possible to complete a PhD in 3-4 years, but it's not really good for your career. this is such a "trust me bro it's good for you" con. i graduated in 3.5 years and went directly to FAANG where i make 2x the highest paid TT at the T10 school i graduated from. do you really have the gall to tell me that it wasn't good for my career to accelerate my PhD and thereby minimize its cost (i.e., opportunity cost). > A PhD is more like an apprenticeship the vast majority of advisors have no skills other than how to hack the pub game. they literally have zero clue about the research. the remainder are the "exceptions that prove the rule".

setopt 5mo ago

All of the things you mention can also be done as a PostDoc. Which might be even better for social networking, broadening your research portfolio, etc. than staying in a single PhD position for the duration of a PhD + PostDoc.

hgoel 5mo ago

>The bar our department sets for a PhD is that at the end of it, you should be a world expert in your specific topic. In my opinion and from my experience, this is an odd expectation considering that a PhD is the absolute beginner career stage in research. It's the equivalent of being trusted to not mess up the morning coffee run. A PhD is only indicative of having demonstrated the ability to complete research to a level that satisfies other researchers. Many of the things you describe are things one is expected to learn in their postdoc and as a junior researcher. I finished mine (computer engineering) in ~5 years, practically 7 since I transferred near the end of a 2 year masters program. I was/am blessed with a good supervisor though.

twbarr 5mo ago

As much as I would have loved to get out in sooner than six years, I tend to agree. In hindsight, if I'd treated it like a job and just done the coding and writing necessary to get the projects I published out the door, I could have done it in three, maybe two. But that would have missed the whole point.