<p>The problem with people who go to top schools is that they are in a bubble (no fault of their own). Its difficult to fathom others taking longer than 5 years to get a phD just as it was difficult as an undergrad to believe that the majority of college students out there scored under 1100 on the SAT.</p>
<p>The averages certainly could be distorted by students who are not full time working on their PhD. These exist in the sciences as well as other areas.</p>
<p>Keep in mind, though, that a PhD is a long road. I would love to see real data from a few top programs, but don't have the time to dig it out.</p>
<p>And I dare say that anyone finishing in less than 5 years is a real outlier, Sakky notwithstanding. They exist, sure, but not commonly.</p>
<p>5-6 years sound about right. 2 for an M.S. along the way, 2 to do your defenses, and 2 to write the dissertation up.</p>
<p>Although, I don't think anyone in my group ever took more the 4.5 years</p>
<p>I'm having a hard time finding this data by program for the schools posters in this thread are most fixated on. I did find this</a> for Berkeley, though: "At Berkeley, the Graduate Division keeps track of each student in a database known as the 'Monster' file, which goes back to the 1960s. Berkeleys average RTDs [registered time to degree] are shorter than the national averages, but still nowhere near five years. In 2004, the average RTD in life sciences was 6.1 ± 2.3 years; in physical sciences it was 5.7 ± 2.0 years; and in engineering it was 5.8 ± 1.8 years." Hmm.</p>
<p>The University of Minnesota is forthcoming with data about its PhD programs. including time to complete by program. For data on any program, go to The</a> Graduate School : Select Program , then select "Program Statistics", then "Graduate Student Progress", and then the top link to "doctoral completion". (Yes, the U of MN isn't in Cambridge, so maybe you should stop reading if you've got a boner for Harvard and can't imagine Hahvahd students taking this long.)</p>
<p>Doesn't look to me like many students are finishing these programs in < 5 years: ~10% of students in a STEM field complete the PhD in 4 years or less, ~20% in arts/languages, ~5% in social sciences. I don't believe that people enroll in these PhD programs intending to take the better part of a decade to complete them. If your goal is to make lots of money by becoming an associate at a consulting firm or the like, it doesn't seem like a PhD in anthro (or whatever) is anywhere near a sure or expedient route there. How can you know as an entering PhD student that you won't face bureaucratic/life issues that could keep you from finishing your degree quickly?</p>
<p>For Berkeley IE:</p>
<p>Admissions</a> FAQ</p>
<p>From Stanford Chem E:</p>
<p>Chemical</a> Engineering - Graduate Admission FAQs</p>
<p>4.5-5.5 years.</p>
<p>Similar stats for other engineering programs from speaking to friends. Departments don't care enough to formally document this unfortunately.</p>
<p>A point I would like to make in this regard, is that many are not in any hurry to get their degree. If they have funding and no other commitments, the process can be lengthened. Many enjoy the lifestyle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You mean to tell me that a PhD student would have been unemployed (income = zero) if they were not in grad school? That is the only way your numbers make sense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said any such thing. I am saying that people with (in her case) an anthro degree are probably not going to be making a lot of money right out of college. Heck, most people with any liberal arts degrees don't exactly make high starting salaries. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And starting point for an MBA is a red herring, because if you look at the actual data (something you seem reluctant to do except when it fits your pre-conceived notions) you would see that most PhD students don't go immediately to grad school either.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then you can input what you feel are more realistic numbers. Like I said, I gave my theoretical MBA student quite an advantage by presuming that #1, he was able to get a $60k job right out of whatever undergrad degree he got, and, more importantly, #2, he really was able to get into B-school with only 2 years of experience.</p>
<p>So let's say that the PhD student goes to grad school when he's 24 or 25. Let's also say that the MBA student goes to B-school when he's 27 or 28 (which is the median age for incoming MBA students). Work out the numbers, and they don't change substantially. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Time to degree? Please, whatever is in the water in Cambridge is affecting your reasoning. 4 years to finish? Look at the data:</p>
<p>Baby Steps on Speeding Up the Ph.D. :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education's Source for News, Views and Jobs</p>
<p>Average time: 7.5 years. Shortest discipline: Chemistry at 6 years.</p>
<p>Maybe Harvard/Mit kids are faster. Sakky, you're there, why not get the data.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The data is here, and the median is probably around 5 years (of course, it depends on the discipline).</p>
<p>But again, I already acknowledged this particular point in my previous post: some people do indeed take longer (and heck, some don't even finish at all). But that's not my point, and never was. My point was, for this particular girl that I discussed, she clearly made out like a bandit. She got a top consulting job at age 26, which is younger than most people even start an MBA program. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Better yet, take a course on analysis of data to learn why you don't make a case from outliers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I think I should be making several courses to you. First of all, you made several severe errors in your NPV analysis, particularly with your double-counting of "opportunity cost". I would recommend that you take a course on basic finance.</p>
<p>Secondly, I would also recommend that you take a course on statistics as well. You talk about outliers: and that's what I'm talking about also. Some people do indeed take a long time to finish their PhD. On the other hand, some take a very short time, and particularly, those who figure out quickly that they don't really want an academic career at all can take a quite short time indeed because they're not trying to build a strong academic CV. They just want to do the bare minimum necessary to finish, and if their resulting publication list is poor, who cares? They're not trying to get a research job anyway. </p>
<p>But, please, newmassdad, next time, do your calculations more carefully. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Doesn't look to me like many students are finishing these programs in < 5 years: ~10% of students in a STEM field complete the PhD in 4 years or less, ~20% in arts/languages, ~5% in social sciences. I don't believe that people enroll in these PhD programs intending to take the better part of a decade to complete them. If your goal is to make lots of money by becoming an associate at a consulting firm or the like, it doesn't seem like a PhD in anthro (or whatever) is anywhere near a sure or expedient route there. How can you know as an entering PhD student that you won't face bureaucratic/life issues that could keep you from finishing your degree quickly?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All of this is completely obscuring my point. Not once have I ever recommended that people choose to get their PhD if they already know beforehand they want to be a consultant. These people should instead just try to join consulting firms right out of undergrad, not least because then they will figure out if they actually like consulting or not (and many find out that they don't like it). </p>
<p>What I am saying is that many PhD students will find out that they can't or don't really want to become researchers/academics, and instead will enter other careers, in which case it doesn't really matter how strong their publication list or advisor backing is, because your employer in your new career will not value them. What those employers will value is the strength of the brand name of your school. </p>
<p>Consulting is just one example of the above. I know many other PhD's who are no longer involved in their research field and are now involved in other careers. Like I said before, I know some Chinese guys who got PhD's and are now back in China working as regular businessmen. I know one guy with a PhD who is serious contemplating running for political office soon. Do you really think the voters are going to care about how many journal citations you have and the impact factor of the journals you publish in? Heck, do you think most voters even know what that means? I don't think so. All they are going to see is that you have a PhD from School X.</p>
<p>The bottom line is this. Nobody knows for sure what career they are going to have. Just because you think that, right now, you want a research career in a certain field doesn't mean that you're still going to want that same career 10 or 20 years in the future, or even if you do want it, that you'll be allowed to get it. For example, during the dotcom bust of 2001, a lot of people with PhD's in computer science and electrical engineering got laid off and couldn't get jobs in their field. Many of them ended up moving onto other things, at least temporarily. {For example, one guy I know with a PhD in CS who got laid off from his dotcom ended up working as a club DJ for over a year, and said it was the most fun job he had ever had in his life.} </p>
<p>The salient point is that *nobody, including you, knows what's going to happen with your career in the future. * What brand-name schools do is they provide you with a marketing advantage in case you find that you want or need to change careers. Somebody with a PhD from Harvard or Stanford or MIT is going to be able to better market himself for other careers and hence enjoy better career flexibility than somebody with a PhD from Wayne State University. I hardly see how that is a controversial point.</p>
<p>It is very normal for a person in the humanities and social sciences to take more than 5 years to finish their doctoral studies. Some social science programs, however, encourage five-year completion. I know this is true for the public universities like Berkeley and Michigan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would recommend that you take a course on basic finance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's funny, Sakky. I teach finance. :)</p>
<p>I won't bore you with the fine points of what you did wrong, as I don't think you are listening and I doubt anyone else here cares. Besides, I am on the road to attend my own daughter's graduation. Not from Harvard or MIT, of course, but from another "lesser" school. Of course, she bested a number of Harvard grads in a scholarship competition last fall....</p>
<p>As I said before, you suggest courses of action based on outliers, as you acknowledge. </p>
<p>A strange way to give advice, IMHO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's funny, Sakky. I teach finance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what I find equally funny is that I teach courses on statistics and econometrics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I won't bore you with the fine points of what you did wrong, as I don't think you are listening and I doubt anyone else here cares.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting - you claim that I am not listening. Is that right? How much have you listened on this thread? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Not from Harvard or MIT, of course, but from another "lesser" school. Of course, she bested a number of Harvard grads in a scholarship competition last fall....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good for her. But that doesn't take away from the topic at hand. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As I said before, you suggest courses of action based on outliers, as you acknowledge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? Are they truly "outliers"? Throughout this thread, I have simply made the general statement that many (probably most) people with PhD's eventually end up in careers outside of their field of study, with consulting being just one example (although apparently one that has attracted a great deal of interest here on this thread). Nevertheless, I hardly find it to be a controversial point to state that just because you have a PhD doesn't mean that you will be always be working as a researcher for the rest of your life. Would anybody, including you newmassdad, claim otherwise? Now, that claim would be strange advice indeed, IMHO.</p>
<p>Thanks so much for all the replies!! These posts have confirmed what I already know - that what you do and your performance in your career is ultimately much more important than the name of the undergraduate.</p>
<p>"Hence, if you end up in industry for whatever reason, then, frankly, your research doesn't really matter, your advisor doesn't really matter, and your publications don't really matter. The prestige of your school matters."</p>
<p>From my experiences in industry, this comment is right on the money. Remember large biotechs/pharmaceuticals have their hiring done by ignorant human resource representatives who often do not even understand the terms involved in someone's cv and just bring in individuals who's cv contains those words. To these people who have no technical criteria to judge applicants, the brand name of an ivy means the difference between the outbox and the circular one.</p>