<p>Well, then that must not be where they are getting their data. </p>
<p>Whatever it was truly used for, I distinctly remember it being part of the final packet of "here are the last hoops to go through prior to getting the sheepskin" and thinking "hey, is this where they got that data on PhD productivity I've looked at?"</p>
<p>"I believe that seven years is the national average for PhD completion"</p>
<p>Now my interest is aroused. Are there data for median times to (Ph.D.) graduation by schools and programs? I only knew one student in our entire program that finished in seven years.</p>
<p>well our neighbor who has a phd in stats took 7 years and we all attributed it to the fact that it was the 80s and he had a Harley.
We were thinking that was a long time-</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Oh, oh. I think I short changed my undergrad program, I don't recall filling anything out...<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Me too. I went back and earned my Ph.D. after taking a 6-year gap in the work force. I'm pretty sure my undergraduate school does not know that I earned a Ph.D.</p>
<p>As for time to degree, in sciences it often depends on what technology you are dealing with. It look me four and a quarter years, but five was more normal for our department. For the the poor x-ray crystalographers it often took them 8 to 10 years to get enough data.</p>
<p>In the biomedical field it can also depend on the natural history of the disease you are working on. Back in the day, nobody wanted to work on "slow viruses" (since renamed prions), because just one experiment could years and years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mention this because isn't it likely that this is the source of the data that is used? In other words, they don't take a national bachelors cohort and track it forward. They take a national cohort of PhDs and track them back.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correct.</p>
<p>There is another database (also available from the WebCASPER site that provides researchers historic data for undergrad degrees awarded by each of several thousand colleges and universities. This is required for coming up with per capita reports in addition to raw numbers.</p>
<p>The site allows custom searches, so people can and do break it down by gender, race, etc. I would say that virtually all "top" colleges and universities use these databases in their own self-evaluations. For example, I've run across several Williams College reports that looks at their PhD production, both over time, and as a tool for evaluation outcomes for various diversity groups on campus. They also include "likelihood of getting an academic PhD" as one of their tagged factors on admissions folders, just like accomplished musicians and so forth.</p>
<p>Here's a link to the Williams Provost's Office study:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Me too. I went back and earned my Ph.D. after taking a 6-year gap in the work force. I'm pretty sure my undergraduate school does not know that I earned a Ph.D.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's why the NSF database of PhD completions is such a valuable tool. Your undergrad school doesn't need to know that you earned a PhD. It's captures in the NSF reporting and has been since the 1920s. It's a government funded on-going research program because the production of research scientists is considered to be important to the country. Capturing other fields, such as social sciences and humanities, is a secondary benefit.</p>
<p>The lack of a standardized national tracking program is what makes it impossible to include medical and law degrees.</p>
<p>"Your undergrad school doesn't need to know that you earned a PhD."</p>
<p>I can understand the NSF angle, but then the question of which school produces how many Ph.D.'s is what I was referring to when I said my undergrad program missed out.</p>
<p>It does matter what one is studying. I just spoke with a friend's daughter who is in her 8th year of her Ph.D. who said with some luck she could be finished in two or three years. She has to make (and has made) several trips to some South American jungles to collect data over a period of time before she can write it up.</p>
<p>There are large fields (besides medicine and law) where Ph.D.s are NOT the predominant working terminal degree. Four that immediately come to mind are social work, engineering, teaching and music. Take the top 10 Ph.D. schools, and combine those numbers with the terminal working degrees earned in those four subjects, and all of a sudden there is a profoundly different picture. Ph.D. numbers by themselves only indicate the propensity of professors to reproduce themselves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are large fields (besides medicine and law) where Ph.D.s are NOT the predominant working terminal degree. Four that immediately come to mind are social work, engineering, teaching and music.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, Engineering produces the fourth largest number of PhD or equivalent degrees in the U.S., behind Education, Biological sciences, and Psychology -- all of which are captured by the NSF data. Approximately 9% of all PhDs awarded in the US are in Engineering fields. Approximately 20% are in Education fields. Approximately 14% are in various Biological sciences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Take the top 10 Ph.D. schools, and combine those numbers with the terminal working degrees earned in those four subjects, and all of a sudden there is a profoundly different picture.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I eagerly await your tabulations. Thanks for volunteering!</p>
<p>In regard to the issue of percentage vs. raw numbers, the big point is that a big part of the value of college is being immersed in the atmosphere. In a huge university, it may well be possible to find exactly the right niche, but there's a risk of being submerged in a culture of big time sports, binge drinking, academic slackers or whatever you bugaboo is.</p>
<p>In contrast, a higher percentage of academic students creates a different atmosphere. Of course, that does not go the the question whether a bunch of future PhD's is or is not preferable to a mix of PhD's, MD's, JD's and a few scattered MBA's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can understand the NSF angle, but then the question of which school produces how many Ph.D.'s is what I was referring to when I said my undergrad program missed out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It doesn't matter. The NSF surveys tabulate with a great deal of precision the undergrad school of every PhD receipient in the United States. That's hard data.</p>
<p>The reason we look at the number of graduates of each undergrad school is to get a reasonably precise figure to use for the size of that school. The vast majority of the schools among the 4000 or so in the database do not change in size signficantly over a short period of time. To be sure, if we use '89 - '98 as the time frame for totaling graduates, we might be overstating the number slightly compared to '84 - '93. But, that overstatement will apply uniformly across all 4000 undergrad schools. </p>
<p>Let's say we overstate the number of graduates by 5%. So what? There's no difference between a PhD production rate of 6.3% and 6.6% for the kind of descriptive analysis these tables lend themselves to. There are only about 100 colleges in the country where 5% of the graduating seniors go on to get a PhD or equivalent degree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In contrast, a higher percentage of academic students creates a different atmosphere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Especially in the classroom. Especially in the entry level courses a freshman or sophmore will likely take. My guess is that at larger universities, there tends to be a "tracking" mechanism where the hardcore academic types take different courses and enjoy different relationships with their professors than the student body as a whole.</p>
<p>I don't know why this generates any controversy. Take an excellent state university like UVA. The top students are going to look very much like, for example, Williams students. But, in addition to those 2000 students, UVa also has students at many other levels of qualifications and career interests. So, of course, Williams is going to produce a higher percentage of students pursuing hard core academic or research careers. Their student body is heavily culled to start with.</p>
<p>This specific data may be somewhat faulty, but I think the approach is valuable, especially for those of us who have kids likely to go to graduate school. Faulty or not, the data raises some questions about some colleges. I wonder about Dartmouth's position which is considerably lower than other Ivy or highly selective colleges. Does that mean Dartmouth really is the alcohol and party school of the Ivies? There are also a lot of relatively unknown colleges with high rankings. Many of these might be great choices for a kid with modest SATs. I would think this list would be especially valuable for the kid with an 1100-1300 SAT who is looking for strong academics and may eventually get an advanced degree.</p>
<p>"I wonder about Dartmouth's position which is considerably lower than other Ivy or highly selective colleges."</p>
<p>Maybe more Dartmouth graduates do become Doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers, architects, musicians, actors, social workers, teachers (not professors), etc. etc. Many professions do not require PhD's.</p>
<p>""Does that mean Dartmouth really is the alcohol and party school of the Ivies? "</p>
<p>Does this suggest that future PhD candidates do not party? Yet another twist to the cc PhD saga! It could be a double feature. We already know who the producer could be. A self proclaimed cc expert on BOTH subjects..:)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does that mean Dartmouth really is the alcohol and party school of the Ivies?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In a way, yes. When looking at two similarly sized schools with roughly equal student bodies (SAT scores, etc.), then these lists can provide a great deal of insight as to the career ambitions and interests of the students. Compare, for example, Dartmouth and UChicago.</p>
<p>The differences between schools with a heavy pre-professional and business orientation and those with heavy academic/research tilts are fairly obvious. And, I would expect the undergrad experience at these two types of schools to differ accordingly.</p>
<p>This is really easy to see when comparing pairs of liberal arts colleges. For example, Grinnell and Washington & Lee.</p>
<p>OMG, we cross posted. I knew it wouldn't take long. Sorry ID, but I'm afraid that dog may not hunt in the real world. In the virtual cc world, maybe.</p>
<p>I'm thinking that if it takes 7 years to get a PhD, there may be some alcohol consumption that takes place. The first alcoholic I met was my college Chemistry (PhD) professor! The second alcoholic I met in college was a biology (PhD) tenured professor.</p>
<p>I graduated from college at the same time as my next door neighbor. Fifteen years later she gets her PHD.</p>
<p>Now, all of a sudden she is more intellectual than I am, and her undergrad school
gets some kind of credit for her getting a PHD?</p>
<p>Ridiculous.</p>
<p>The problem I have with the Williams-UVA comparison is now we get to label Williams grads as academic because they graduate a large percentage of students who end up as PHDs and we don't necessarily do that to UVA students because the school's percentages are lower. We do this regardless of a particular student's experience at a school. </p>
<p>I find this incredibly, intellectually lazy.</p>
<p>Actually, if you read what I wrote, I focused more on the career ambitions and interests of the student body.</p>
<p>Is there a correlation between pre-professional oriented schools are heavy alcohol consumption? Beats me.</p>
<p>Certainly, among the Ivies, Penn and Dartmouth have the lowest per capita PhD production and are generally regarded as being the most uniformly pre-professional of the Ivy League schools and the "party" Ivies, as supported by their published binge drinking stats.</p>
<p>"Especially in the classroom. Especially in the entry level courses a freshman or sophmore will likely take. My guess is that at larger universities, there tends to be a "tracking" mechanism where the hardcore academic types take different courses and enjoy different relationships with their professors than the student body as a whole"</p>
<p>Oh puleeze! Interestdad, you yourself have commented on the high percentage of PhD's in Education. Have you ever sat in on an ed course? Could you find a major which in most cases, attracts the least intellectual, least likely to challenge the status quo academically, type of student??? I belive studies have shown that current ed majors have the lowest SAT scores relative to the rest of the student body at their institution than any other major. </p>
<p>Do you really think that a kid who majors in Art History and then takes that BA and ends up with a curatorial job at a world class museum is less of an intellectual than the kid who doesn't have the chops to get a job so winds up hanging around for a PhD? The former might end up getting an MFA or a Master's in Conservation while working at the Smithsonian, while the PhD is the one who gets "counted" by your statistic...regardless of the professional outcome.</p>
<p>res ipsa loquitor, and no, I don't have a PhD.</p>
<p>Maybe we can cross reference all the nebulous PhD production statistics with all the outdated binge drinking statistics and come up with yet another list of "perfect" schools for all the really academically driven future PhD's who are going to change the world and never party.</p>