<p>How long does it usually take to get a Ph.D. degree (in biology)?</p>
<p>Most of the programs claim to average about 5 or 5.5 years.</p>
<p>Of course, it's almost totally dependent on your research, and your time to degree can be affected by things like the quality of your project, the number of roadblocks you hit along the way, and the amount of funding your advisor has lying around.</p>
<p>According to the Chemical Engineering Website at Stanford it takes an average of 4.5-5.5 years. </p>
<p>Of course that said I know a person who took 7 years to finish his phd (if I remember correctly his project was extremely complex)</p>
<p>I know someone who completed his PhD in 9 years. He has a family, so that's probably a reason why it took him so long.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course, it's almost totally dependent on your research, and your time to degree can be affected by things like the quality of your project, the number of roadblocks you hit along the way, and the amount of funding your advisor has lying around.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think a lot of it has to do with personal drive also, especially for the top students at the top schools. Many of them could probably complete a mediocre dissertation in a relatively short period of time; and although they would graduate, they know that they wouldn't have any shot at a top tenure-track position (or probably any tenure-track position at any school). </p>
<p>As a case in point, consider the sad example of Jason Altom, a PhD chemistry candidate at Harvard who committed suicide from the pressures of completing the extremely difficult project of synthesizing haplophytine, which, to quote the article, is "an obscenely complex compound." He could have chosen a far easier project and successfully graduated. In fact, again according to the article, his earlier work to synthesize a precursor to the haplophytine that he completed 2 years prior to his suicide was already good enough to use to successfully graduate. But that wasn't good enough for him. He felt driven to reach for the brass ring. And surely, the psychological environment at the lab of his advisor, EJ Corey, surely contributed to that drive. That self-drive ultimately consumed Altom. </p>
<p>The upshot is that a lot of PhD students could probably complete their degrees much earlier, but don't do so because they want to position themselves to get better academic jobs or simply because of their own desire to complete a high-profile project. </p>
<p>What doesn't help is that most tenure-track positions do not provide 'credit' if you graduate early; the moment that you start the job, the tenure clock is running. When that clock expires, you either get tenure, or you're dismissed. Hence, you might graduate early, get a tenure-track job, but then ultimately not get tenure, whereas if you had had an extra year or 2 (i.e. if you had just stayed in grad school longer), you'd probably have more/better publications and projects completed and that extra boost might have put you over the tenure hump. </p>
<p>I know one girl who is basically already complete with her doctorate and could have defended and hence graduated last June. Her advisors already told her that what she had was sufficient. Yet she decided to delay her defense until next year, because she basically wanted to spend the coming year publishing more papers and hence strengthening her CV.</p>
<p>Just a note: Tenure cases are evaluated upon publications issued ONLY during one's employment. Earlier publications don't count. Promotion and tenure evaluations look for productivity while in one's current position, not previous ones.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just a note: Tenure cases are evaluated upon publications issued ONLY during one's employment. Earlier publications don't count. Promotion and tenure evaluations look for productivity while in one's current position, not previous ones.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We have to be careful about what is meant by 'publication' or 'earlier'. We should all keep in mind that the act of publishing is often times not a quick process. There are plenty of fields in which it can literally take years for a particular paper to be published, from first submission to final publication date, and that doesn't even count all of the extra time you used in first (obviously) even doing the research necessary to write the paper, and then submitting to journal after journal before you finally find a journal that will ultimately accept it for publication. For example, I know of some working papers that, 5 years after they were even written, STILL haven't been actually published anywhere (i.e. they were submitted to one journal that rejected them, submitted to another that also rejected them, etc.).</p>
<p>What most schools will do is actually count the actual publication date as part of your "work" that you performed at that particular school. Hence, if you happen to do most of the work for a particular paper beforehand, but not actually have it published until you arrive at your new school, then that will often times count as "new" publications, even though they really are not. That's because schools rarely know exactly when you did certain work, and won't care. </p>
<p>I'll give you one poignant example. I know a guy who held dual affiliations: a temporary one at Berkeley and a permanent one at a school in Germany (don't remember the name). While at Berkeley, he spent years building a mountain of experimental research data, but not actually publishing any of it (as he freely admitted he was more interested in courting his girlfriend, who became his wife). But, returning to Germany newly married, he decided to buckle down and analyze his data, and combined it with some new data that he procured in his lab in Germany, and began shooting out new publications at a rate of once a month for over a year. That's because the data he got from Berkeley was high quality data, but it had not been refined with further work until he went back to Germany. More importantly, that data from Berkeley inspired him to conduct new experiments in Germany that he would never have even thought of before, because now he knew what worked and what didn't work. </p>
<p>But that German university had no way to distinguish between the two. For example, if he designed the perfect experiment in Germany that produced impressive results, but only because he performed numerous failed experiments back in Berkeley and so he knew what not to do, the school has no way to know that you had actually done most of the "work" in your previous school, because all of that previous "work" was never published anyway (because they were failed experiments). So nobody knows what's going on except you. If you have previous data of a successful, but unpublished result, and you just reproduce the experiment at your new school, again, nobody actually knows that your work is a carbon copy of your old work, because that old work never got published anyway. </p>
<p>Then of course there are the social aspects of publication. Let's face it. A lot of what constitutes publication success rests on the strength of your coauthors and collaborators and your networking. Lazy/mediocre collaborators are simply deadly to a particular project, but top collaborators can easily smooth a project's pace. For example, I know one former PhD student at Harvard whose time as a student could be described as brilliant. Within only a short time after even entering the PhD program (but also years before she actually graduated), she had already established a towering reputation in her field for groundbreaking research, and by the time she actually did graduate, she was already recognized as probably THE leading authority in her particular field. Now that she will be an assistant prof, she will be able to leverage that 'reputational capital'. For example, before she's even started her first tenure-track job, she already has had many of the world's leading PhD students, post-docs, and profs in her field inquiring to work with her. She knows everybody in her field, and more importantly, they all know her. Hence, she will surely have a great advantage when it comes to producing more top publications to come simply because of the armada of top-quality people who she can pick from for collaboration. The vast majority of new assistant profs lack that networking advantage and thus have to beg and scrounge for high-quality collaborators.</p>
<p>Precisely correct: Publication DATE is what matters, although the research process may have taken place at another institution.</p>
<p>Exactly. And since publications in numerous fields (notably many of the social sciences and especially apparently in business/economics) can take several years from initial submission to final publication, you can manipulate the system in your favor. For example, if you have a paper that is in the 'revise & resubmit' phase, you just simply delay your resubmission until such time as you are entering another job anyway. Obviously there are limits to this process (i.e. you can't hold onto a revision forever, and you may get scooped by somebody else doing the same research as you are), but the point is, there are things you can do to fiddle with the timing.</p>
<p>True. But those won't help with your CV.</p>
<p>
[quote]
True. But those won't help with your CV.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course not - until they actually get published. That's the point. ProfessorX has pointed out that some jobs will only count the publications you write during the time that you hold that job for the purposes of promotion. This is true. My response is that you can then manipulate the timing of your publications to push those dates until the time that you actually hold that particular job, if you want those publications to count for that job. </p>
<p>For exampe, if you're about to complete your Phd, and you have a bunch of papers that are about to be published, and you are also about to start a job as a tenure-track assistant prof, what you can do is simply delay the actual publication of those papers until you actually formally start that asst prof job. That way, when your tenure-review comes up, you can count those publications as works completed during your time at your current employer (as opposed to when you were still a student). Your current employer doesn't really "know" exactly when you did the actual work for a particular paper.</p>
<p>Look, it's just a silly delaying mechanism, but sometimes you have to do silly things to conform to silly rules that universities design. I personally don't understand why universities don't count prior work. For example, if a paper I publish as a PhD student is of brilliant Nobel caliber, why shouldn't that paper help me in my later tenure review? Just because I published it as a student but not as a prof, it doesn't count? Why not? But I recognize that some universities will implement silly rules that won't count such papers. Hence, sometimes you have to provide a silly response to a silly rule.</p>
<p>No, you don't understand. You said that you know a person who is delaying their diss for a year to get pubs to improve her CV. Then you say pubs should be delayed to count for tenure. But if you do that, it doesn't improve the CV, which makes your example of the girl you know a little odd. The juxtaposition of your arguments aren't fitting together. That's what I meant. Oh, and I don't think those are silly rules, BTW. They only count pubs during tenure because they want you to continue to publish heavily while you are a prof. Additionally, the quality of your work should be better as time goes on. If it's not, you're sitting on your laurels and can't be considered a serious scholar. Hence, no tenure.</p>
<p>Uh, no, YOU don't understand. I NEVER said that this girl was trying to improve her CV right now. She is going to improve her CV for later. </p>
<p>Specifically, she already basically feels that she is going to get placed because her advisors (all very big names) have told her that they will give her excellent recommendations and she has already become well known in her field before she has even graduated. Hence, she doesn't need an improved CV right now. She already has what she needs to get placed somewhere. </p>
<p>On the other hand, she is looking into the future and specifically at what she will need to maximize her chances to pass tenure review. By stocking up on ready-made, but still unpublished work, she will maximize the publications that she WILL have WHILE she is on the tenure-track. She is hence improving her CV for the tenure review. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, and I don't think those are silly rules, BTW. They only count pubs during tenure because they want you to continue to publish heavily while you are a prof.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I think the above demonstrates quite clearly how silly the rules are. She is effectively choosing to delay her graduation by a whole year in order to maximize her chances of passing tenure. Why should that be helpful to her? Why not just give her an extra year of assistant-professorship before tenure review? What it effectively means is that she would be punished for graduating early. THAT is what makes the rules silly. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If it's not, you're sitting on your laurels and can't be considered a serious scholar. Hence, no tenure.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, who's sitting on their laurels? I think we can all agree that all assistant profs who are seriously attempting to get tenure are going to work extremely hard.</p>
<p>But the unfortunately reality is that plenty of assistant profs who work very hard will nonetheless still not get tenure. This is especially so at the top departments at the top schools For example, several departments at Harvard and MIT have upwards of 80%+ "fail" rates when it comes to tenure review. </p>
<p>Hence, many people feel that they have to arm themselves with every possible advantage they can get. And if that means effectively giving themselves extra time by just not graduating early (even though they could), then that's what they do. But that's what makes the process silly. The process shouldn't be providing these sorts of perverse incentives. But sadly, it does. </p>
<p>Heck, I was just talking to a Harvard professor who is going through the tenure review process this year. He graduated early (in 3 years), and he regrets doing it, for he feels that if he just stayed in grad school longer, he could have gotten more work done and therefore gotten more publications out. In particular, one of his projects, which he has worked on for years, is only now starting to bear 'publication fruit', in the sense that only now has he been able to analyze the project data in a way to produce publishable papers. If he had another year to work on this project, he would probably have a bunch of publications from it. But now, it's too late. Tenure review has come up and cannot be delayed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I think the above demonstrates quite clearly how silly the rules are. She is effectively choosing to delay her graduation by a whole year in order to maximize her chances of passing tenure. Why should that be helpful to her? Why not just give her an extra year of assistant-professorship before tenure review? What it effectively means is that she would be punished for graduating early. THAT is what makes the rules silly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just because she chooses to take an extra year does not make it silly. Most profs do not, and they do just fine.</p>
<p>It's well known that a handful of the Ivy League schools and MIT don't generally give tenure. As there are thousands of colleges and universities, I don't think one should judge publication reqs and tenure from them.</p>
<p>BTW, 3 years in grad school is excessively short. He should definitely have stayed longer. Again, that has nothing to do with tenure but his own poor decisionmaking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because she chooses to take an extra year does not make it silly. Most profs do not, and they do just fine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I understand that most do not.</p>
<p>But she has decided to. And in her case, it isn't really an "extra year" in a larger sense, because her regular (fast) pace would have allowed her to graduate early. So what she is really going is just graduating at a normal pace.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW, 3 years in grad school is excessively short. He should definitely have stayed longer. Again, that has nothing to do with tenure but his own poor decisionmaking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Poor decisionmaking? How is that? She came in having worked for many years in industry (as a researcher) and as a result, knew exactly what she wanted to study and who she wanted to work with, in contrast to most new PhD students who don't really know what they want to study. How is that a matter of "poor decisionmaking". I would actually argue that this is brilliant decisionmaking, as she didn't have to flounder around for awhile trying to find a research topic and then trying to pitch it to a faculty member. She knew *exactly *what she wanted to do, and so didn't have to waste time. She was able to start researching her topic from day 1. But her stance is that she shouldn't be punished for having that head start. I find that entirely reasonable. </p>
<p>If anything could be labeled as "poor decisionmaking", I would argue that it's not her, but rather those people who come into grad school not knowing what they really want to research, and hence end up wasting time (sometimes many years) trying to figure these things out. Yet the fact is, this kind of "poor decision making" is the norm, as most PhD students don't know what they really want to research. But let's not cast aspersions at somebody who came into the program in better-than-average shape. This woman entered the program in far better shape than the average PhD student. That's not "poor decision making", that's brilliant decision making.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. How long, on average, is the "tenure clock"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Trick question, because it depends heavily on the discipline and on the school. For example, in business schools, the tenure clock is long, and at the top business schools, very long (i.e. at HBS, it's about 10 years). </p>
<p>
[quote]
2. When does that "tenure clock" start?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, trick question, as it depends on the department and the school. For many departments, it is the day that you formally start. In those departments, it doesn't count if you published it beforehand. </p>
<p>
[quote]
3. Does an article or monograph submitted for publication prior to starting a TT job count for tenure?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, trick question. Depends on the department. See above. </p>
<p>
[quote]
4. What are the four factors that are considered when evaluating a tenure package?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A supreme trick question, as it, once again, depends heavily on your department. Some departments could care not a whit about your teaching evals. Others care a great deal. Some departments care not a whit about your practitioner's publications (i.e. books or practitioner's journals like Harvard Business Review). Others care a great deal. Hence, it's very difficult to generalize.</p>
<p>Come on, you think I'd really fall for your trick questions? </p>
<p>Now that I've answered your questions, I think it's fair for you to answer them too.</p>
<p>None of those are trick questions, a fact you'd know if had the slightest idea of what you've been blathering about here.</p>
<p>Sorry son. You fail.</p>