<p>How do some people complete their Ph D's in 3 years? Is it based on your school and your advisor? Is there anyway you can plan to do this or is it just something that sort of happens?</p>
<p>I think most advisors want 5-6 years. I think a long PhD is more common at better schools because they want to ensure that the people graduating have done high quality theses. The earliest I’ve personally known here is about 4 years (this is physics), but I think the time to PhD in engineering tends to be a bit shorter than in the natural sciences (around 5 years, whereas it’s 6 years for the natural sciences).</p>
<p>Anyway, the only way I can think of getting a PhD in 3 years is that you come into the school with a masters and you already have a precise idea of what you want to do (this is almost never the case). Not everything you work on will go into your dissertation.</p>
<p>I’ve seen it happen a few of times, including one 2-year PhD. </p>
<p>The 2-year PhD student had a 2-year MS, and a year post-MS / pre-PhD non-degree seeking at a top school. So he was basically in school 5 years anyway.</p>
<p>The 3-year’s I’ve seen have come in two varieties: one is the 2-3 year MS student that’s basically a PhD student (taking all the classes and performing research) that just continues on. The other are the students with no intention to ever work in research (usually military students). They come in with a pre-arranged agreement that the student passes comps then does a quick 1-year research project and is granted the degree. That makes it basically a non-thesis PhD, which is pretty much worthless unless you already have a job (like you’re going back on active-duty military).</p>
<p>Robert Woodward entered MIT for undergrad at age 16 and at age 19, MIT awarded him a PhD in chemistry. That’s right - not a bachelor’s degree - but aPhD. He had finished the bachelor’s degree at age 18, and so his PhD took only a single year. What’s even more amazing is that MIT had actually expelled him for a whole year (when he was 17) for poor grades, forcing him to reapply. He then became a member of the Harvard Society of Fellows at age 21 and full Professor at Harvard at age 33. </p>
<p>Elias Corey completed his PhD in chemistry at MIT in 3 years, at age 23, was full professor at the University of Illinois at age 27, and full professor at Harvard at age 30. John Nash completed his PhD in mathematics at Princeton in 2 years. Greg Mankiw completed his PhD in economics at MIT in 2 nonconsecutive years, with an intervening year trying to earn his law degree at Harvard Law, from which he ultimately dropped out, and a year working at the CEA.</p>
<p>Ok Sakky so what for the people who don’t have a movie made about them ;).
Good history lesson though :P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or if you’re entering a career in which your research (or lack thereof) doesn’t really matter, but rather the fact that you just have a PhD. For example, school teachers in many districts will, by law, receive a contractually stipulated boost in their salary if they have a PhD. It doesn’t matter whether the PhD required a thesis or not, it doesn’t even matter which school you got it in as long as it is accredited, whether it’s Harvard or some no-name school. All that matters is that you have a PhD.</p>
<p>I know of a guy who went to Texas A&M right out of his B.S., finished his masters in the standard 1.5 years, and then, because the stars aligned correctly and all his research fell into place and flowed pretty much perfectly from MS to PhD, he is on track to finish his PhD in about 1.5 to 2 more years. I was amazed when I heard about it.</p>
<p>Really, because I looked at the U Florida and U Texas websites and they said it can be done in as little as three years (for chem eng). But does that mean for people who already have a masters, three more on top of that?</p>
<p>If your goal is to earn a PhD ASAP, you shouldn’t go to graduate school.</p>
<p>Thanks Dad. Guess I won’t ask questions anymore.</p>
<p>get your bachelors, associates, masters, phD degrees online now!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that shows that there’s some maturity necessary.</p>
<p>You don’t get a PhD just to have a PhD - you get one because you want to work in a field that necessitates it. Finishing in 3 years with no research will land you a really bad position, or no position at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, some of them go to, say, the UK, or Canada, where 3-year PhDs (that involve few or no classes, just research) are common.</p>
<p>According to an email I just got, getting my d1ploma in a variety of fields takes only 10 days and no work, for a modest fee of course. These people offered Bachelors, Associates, Masters, PhD, JD, and several others. I am thinking about letting all the schools I got into know that I have decided not to pursue grad school and will be buying a d1ploma instead.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>Dear GP,</p>
<p>You can use me, but you can’t abuse me.</p>
<p>Joanne Linville out.</p>
<p>2Kewt,
I think GP Burdell is a romantic but he makes a good point.
Yes, it’s possible to get a PhD in 3 years or even less, and you don’t have to be an Einstein to pull that off. And in my opinion there is nothing wrong with considering the duration of the program when you are looking a graduate study because it’s such a long and arduous commitment. An old friend of mine chose Cornell over MIT because the program at Cornell was, on average, 3 years shorter. She ended up graduating in only 3 years (in CS theory). I know a guy who was so good, the department handed him his diploma in 2 and half (again CS theory, the so-called “systems” area takes longer because there is so much more busy work).
But these folks are exceptional cases. In a technical field, chances are you will be looking at 4-5 years or 6 or 7… I spent…eh, more years in grad school than I care to admit. lol. They say in some hum. or soc sci fields, paying the due for 10 years is not unheard of. You have to be prepared for the long haul. A phD degree is a test of one’s determination and perseverence, if nothing more.</p>