assuming one is working year round, full time. After one gets a bachelors degree, how many more years does a PhD in something like biochemistry or mechanical engineering usually take?
Depends on how long it takes to get thesis approved if it is ever approved. Anywhere from 3 to 15 or so.
technically, the amount of time could vary quite a bit. I mean approximately; this many years, give or take that many, etc.
A typical average is 5-6 years. There are probably 2 years worth of courses and then the full time research for 3 years or so.
My son has visited several top aerospace engineering PhD programs (Michigan, Purdue, Georgia Tech). They all estimate five years, but your mileage may vary. If I could underline “estimate” I would. These are all programs that skip an actual Masters degree.
Yeah, I’d say 4-7 years. It depends on your level of preparation and the program itself, as well as your committee and other factors (how well your research goes, etc.) Some students deliberately delay graduation for various reasons, too, so they could’ve finished in 4 but decided to take a fifth to publish more papers or whatnot.
I’ve seen anywhere from 3 to 7 years, with 5 or 6 being typical. This has primarily been in mechanical and aerospace engineering. It varies quite a bit but skews pretty heavily toward the longer end rather than the shorter end (a 3 year PhD really requires a planetary alignment of good circumstances, usually involving starting in the same lab as an undergraduate).
I know this kind of probing can look a bit silly, but truth be told, i get anxious about being older and still in school. Especially with the economy the way it is now.
So, 3 is possible but, perhaps, too improbable & difficult to be taken seriously. But 4, is that doable? Would four years be a reasonable possibility with enough, er, planning, and/or connections?
@DinnerPlate - Even if you knew exactly where you wanted to go to graduate school and what you wanted to study, you could not predict how long it would take: too many variables. However, lots of folks in the technical fields drop out after completing everything but the thesis. I’ve seen quite a few CVs/resumes that say completed all requirements except thesis for PhD. So if you got antsy or some good opportunity came along, you could drop out without any shame.
This is something I, too, worried about when I was 22. Once you get older, you realize precisely how little a year or two means in the grand scheme of things when you’re talking about a PhD. Your economic situation and chances will change very little if you finish the PhD at age 29 or 30 vs. age 28.
It is theoretically possible to finish in 4 years. I have seen it done, occasionally. But the stars have to align:
People who finish in less than 5 years are already exceptionally well-prepared for doctoral study. Often, they have a master’s. If not, they typically have years of experience in research, often post-undergrad. They’ve learned how to work independently already, and they have a good idea of how academia operates. Many times they did their undergrad at the same institution as their doctoral program, or sometimes they worked as an RA or lab manager there. So they’ve already gotten started on some projects and established a good rapport with their PI. They also tend to have few obligations outside of their doctoral program: almost always no children, and frequently no significant other either.
These folks tend to also have fully-formed research and mature career goals. They’re already pretty sure what they want to do for their research agenda, for their dissertation and for their career after they finish the PhD program. This is purely anecdotal and observational, but in my experience the few people I know who finished in 4 years tended to go to non-academic positions. My guess is that’s partially due to the fact that you need so many publications to get tenure-track positions these days that staying an extra 1-2 years to publish is a good idea for that track.
And they got lucky: they didn’t get sick, their experiments went well the first time (or they used secondary data), they didn’t need to take a leave of absence. I would also wager a guess that they largely spent their summers in the lab doing research and working on their dissertation, as opposed to taking advantage of research or internship opportunities elsewhere.
Now, here’s the rub: I personally would not recommend attempting to finish in four years, especially if you are attempting to go to a doctoral program straight from undergrad.
You need time to grow and mature as a scholar (and as a person, quite frankly). Your research interests may change - a little or a lot. You may need to change PIs or projects. You may decide to spend some “free” time working on an interesting paper or opportunity that leads to a publication or something else that enhances your resume. You may decide to spend a summer doing something only tangentially related at another university, or an internship. These are GOOD things. They are things that may help you find your passion eventually, or at least get a job. I could’ve finished my PhD in 5 years, maybe 4.5 years even, if I hadn’t spent my summers teaching and interning. But I also wouldn’t have the job I currently have, either - it’s directly related to one of the internships I did. And I looooooooooove my job.
In a PhD program, your chief concern should never be the time. I’m not saying it’s okay to languish for 7+ years - that’s not ideal, either. But 5-6 years is a good goal, I think - that’s the appropriate amount of time (in the U.S.) to finish the coursework and exams and dissertation while still doing all that OTHER stuff you need to do to professionalize and get a job. Remember that the degree requirements are the bare minimum, and sticking to those by themselves will not get you hired anywhere.
I just want to give a big Thank You for all the replies! Thanks especially to Juliet for the details. It was helpful and I’ll definately keep what you said in mind for any future Ph.d-related decisions.
Hopefully just one more question for all, though. How is the time to complete a PhD influenced if you have masters degree of a similar subject matter or specialization beforehand?
My friend’s D got her PhD before turning 30. They have had to relocate to a Germany so her husband can complete his because his advisor relocated to Germany, or he’d have to start all over again. I agree with everyone that it depends on so many factors.
It depends on the major. For example, according to the American Institute of Physics, the average PhD time for a theoretical physics major is 6.1 years. For an experimental physics major it is 6.4 years. Lots more interesting stats here: https://www.aps.org/careers/statistics/upload/trends-phd0214.pdf
@DinnerPlate, whether or not you have a masters (or even get a masters) is specific to the field. In many STEM fields you enter as a PhD candidate, and only get a Masters as an off-ramp- that is you, the university or both decide that you aren’t going to be able to go the distance.
As @juillet pointed out, the first 1-2 years are typically course work, and if you have already done a Masters you may be able to skip that part- but it won’t save you any time.
But, there is another perspective that you are missing: once you pass the coursework part of your program (the first 1-2 years) you are not "in school’ in any way that you know it now: you are a researcher. You go to work, do your research, write up your findings, get papers published, present at conferences, apply for grants, get paid- all the same things that you will do once you have your PhD, but with a supervisor behind you to help you learn how to do those things. True, there is a tough part right at the very end, where you have to push to finish your dissertation and defend it, but it is a defense of your own work- in which you are the expert- and your soon-to-be peers evaluate your mastery of your own, chosen field. It is really not like being an undergrad at all.