<p>I'm curious what's the average age for students to start their PhD?
And how long does it take to finish the PhD?
I read somewhere that the average age to start PhD is 27 and it takes 3-5years, is it correct?</p>
<p>Start PhD immediately after finishing BS or get some working experiences after finishing BS then start PhD is better?</p>
<p>3 years maybe includes having the MS already. I know that in my particular program the fastest anyone has graduated recently is 4 years (from undergrad to PhD). The average is 5-5.5, but that certainly doesn’t count the many people who dropped out.</p>
<p>Average age to start a PhD varies between disciplines and depends on whether or not the student holds a masters degree or not. I was made to believe that the vast majority start a PhD between the ages of 22-28 in most fields.</p>
<p>Time to complete can vary widely. A masters degree is typically limited to 1-5 years, with most taking 2-3. A PhD following a masters is typically limited to 3-8 years, while a direct to PhD requires 4-8. This gives a spread of 4-13 years as possible times to go from bachelors to doctorate.</p>
<p>In reality, most non-biological sciences take 5-6 years, while the rest typically take 7-8 years. This can vary widely between disciplines and schools, and of course student intent - if you go in swinging for a short degree you can usually do it. Depending on the field, after 2-4 years you may be able to complete the research and thesis off-campus, either while working or else just from a different location.</p>
<p>As to the work experience, there is no right answer in most fields. Going straight from undergrad keeps you in an academic mindset and lets you go while you still remember all the material. Working for a few years provides focus, maturity, and experience at the cost of that academic discipline. Very few fields make mandates in this area, so it is usually an individual decision.</p>
<p>I would recommend you check out [Find</a> the Graduate School That’s Right for You — PhDs.org Graduate School Guide](<a href=“http://graduate-school.phds.org%5DFind”>http://graduate-school.phds.org) - they give you the ability to search and rank programs, and include the average time to degree for most.</p>
<p>As a third-year PhD student, I am super-amused at the idea of a three-year PhD. I’m just getting started!</p>
<p>Robert Woodward finished his PhD in chemistry at MIT in a single year. He was 20 years old when he graduated. </p>
<p>Noam Elkies finished his PhD in math at Harvard in 2 years, at age 20. 6 years later, he became the youngest tenured professor in the history of Harvard, beating even Larry Summers and Alan Dershowitz. </p>
<p>Then of course you have Lawrence Bragg who actually won the Nobel Prize at age 25. I’m not talking about completing the work at age 25 that would later be recognized with a Nobel Prize, I am talking about actually being awarded the Nobel at age 25. Even more amazingly, his work was interrupted by WW1, during which he was assigned to military research work that had little to do with his Nobel winning discoveries.</p>
<p>Anything in under 3 years (in recent times) is definitely an unusual case. Otherwise it depends on your school and focus - the few people I know who did their PhD’s in 3-4 years did so by (a) making it very clear that this was their intent, (b) going to those schools that were the most receptive, and (c) working their asses off.</p>
<p>I already have my masters, and my PhD advisor told me (before I asked) that 3 years was my probable time to degree. I am personally planning for 4 and leaving room for 5.</p>
<p>My boss did his, no masters, in 3 years. EE, Northwestern.</p>
<p>Again, this is all very school and field dependent - there are a lot of places that will dissolve into laughter if you mention a 4-year PhD.</p>
<p>^^^ this is very true in the humanities. No one can complete a humanities PhD in less than 4 years.</p>
<p>^^^ You can if you already have a Masters, are very clear on your topic and are very disciplined. One of my best friends completed her PhD (French literature) in 3 years, even though she had funding for 4. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I also know someone who spent nearly 8 years on his PhD (Chinese history). He’d also done a related MA beforehand. </p>
<p>I think it really depends on the individual, and on the expectations of your department and advisor.</p>
<p>When people cite that 3 year figure for Phds, they aren’t referring to American Phds. They are referring to British or Australian Phds where you enter with a masters or honors year (or whatever they call it). Americans in the sciences take about 5 to 6 years with outliers at either end. Australians are obligated to finish in under 4 years or no more funding will come their way.</p>
<p>^^^ I almost think American PhDs should be finished in 3-4 years instead of the typical 5+ cycle.</p>
<p>belevitt: I was referring to American PhDs - while 5-6 years is about the norm (inculding any masters work) times as short as 3-4 years are possible, even today, even at reputable schools (although not all!).</p>
<p>to make it simple, for normal people like us, it takes around 5 years, which makes 4.5-5.5 years is most typical (in non-medical science/engineering fields)</p>
<p>Sakky mentioned some “smart” people did their PhD in short time, that is not rare at all, I have a group member whose husband did his phd in 3 years, and one big guy in my department got BS,MS,PhD 3 degrees in 3 consecutive years (which made him got his PhD 2 years after BS, 1 year after MS)</p>
<p>the thing is that it is not really about how quickly you do it but how well you do it. who cares if you finish in 3 years and don’t have much to show for it? quality not quantity… as with everything</p>
<p>Wow! Mr. Zoo.
Your friend is so amazing!!
BS 1year
MS 1year
PhD 1year</p>
<p>What department he is? What major and which school?
I have never heard of this thing. So he get his PhD when he is 21?</p>
<p>Average time to degree is normally 4-8+ years, with smaller values in the sciences and larger values in the humanities. This varies largely by program. In my program, the average time is 7.5 years, but the time to degree varies from 4.5 years to 9+ years depending on the person, whether they have a master’s degree, family obligations, etc. I am personally planning (with my advisor’s blessing that it is realistic) for 5 years, but leaving room and energy for a possible 6th.</p>
<p>The average age in this program tends older…I am the youngest in my program; I started at 22. The other women in my cohort were all between the ages of 25-35 when they began the program with me in September. It depends on the field - in one of my fields it’s common to have a master’s and work experience before coming to get a Ph.D, whereas in the other it’s more common to come from undergrad or after maybe 1-3 years working as a lab assistant (and so the students in that program are closer to my age).</p>
<p>As for whether to go after undergrad or take time off…eh. I went for my Ph.D right after I finished undergrad and I oscillate between lamenting not taking time off (all of the other students in my cohort are considerably more well-traveled than me, and being older, they are of course more mature) and being happy that I came straight through (being only 22, I am thinking of babies as a far-off thing that will happen when I am nearly done or done, while the 34-year-old in my cohort is due at the beginning of next month. We just finished our first year. Plus I have plenty of time to travel and grow after I finish!) It really depends on the person and one’s goals and ambitions, as well as one’s field. In some fields, it’s quite advantageous for one to have worked for a couple of years before coming here, and it may be nearly impossible to gain admissions without that experience. In other fields, little to no work experience is expected.</p>
<p>As for Mr. Zoo’s friend – well, he only said he earned his degrees in three consecutive years. I don’t think he only took 1 year to earn his BS – it’s just that he happened to finish his BS in, say, 2003, his master’s in 2004, and his Ph.D in 2005. He may have entered college in 1999 and took the full four years to finish. But mutation is right – you’re not going to get a job based on how quickly you finished your Ph.D; search committees don’t care if it took you 4 years or 8 years. What matters is the quality of work that you produced during that time and your recommendations from advisors. A student who whizzes through in 3 years may not have to the time to write quality publications and form the kinds of relationships that will get him jobs, whereas the 8-year student who uses her time well may have a better shot.</p>
<p>8 years is still an awful long time considering your non-PhD peers are out in the real world earning an income (plus bonuses, raises, promotions, etc.).</p>
<p>In an ideal world, PhDs should not take longer than three years after completion of a master’s degree (4 years for MA/PhD combo).</p>
<p>There is currently little incentive for departments to push students through any faster - while you are there you provide invaluable teaching and research assistant for a fraction of the price of a career professional. With the number of applicants at major universities, they know they can find people willing ii stick it out that long. I think one of the reason science/engineering PhD’s happen faster is because there is a greater financial incentive to be in industry, so they cannot hold onto people as long.</p>
<p>From what I understand, it really is an issue of quality. I’ve heard of situations where a student pushed thru a Physics PhD in three years(after masters). This student was the first to finish of the 20 or 30 students that started at the same time at the top physics program where this student attended.</p>
<p>For whatever reason the doctoral student made a huge issue of finishing early. Even switched research groups because of it…and not on the best of terms. The problem was once the PhD was completed early, it was harder to find a academic position because other candidates had a more extensive research background and maybe leaving a research group on poor terms lead to medicore references needed for the academic posistions.</p>
<p>At the same time I’ve heard of PhD students speding the customary 4 or 5 years after masters and getting stunningly good academic appointments.</p>
<p>That is an issue - all else being equal a longer PhD means more conferences, presentations, publications, and teaching time. Rushing out too quick can short you in those categories, suicide if you want to go into academia.</p>
<p>There are two “buts” to go along with that, however.</p>
<p>First, there are those who know that they do not want to go into academia. For the most part, the private and government sectors are more interested in your knowledge than in how you showed it. All of the people I know who got a quick degree went into industry and did very well.</p>
<p>Second, there is no guarantee that a longer program will be more fruitful. I was down to two programs, and had the chance to ask the professors and grad students some questions - at the first I was told I could do a 3-4 year program, with at least 3 publications and a couple of conference presentations under my belt before graduation, confirmed by the current students in private. At the second I was told 5-6 years, and the departing grad students had only a single publication and conference apiece. Longer, and less productive, just spending more time doing someone else’s work for no money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They key factor seems to be the tenure promotion process. Your tenure clock usually starts the moment you become an Assistant Prof. Finishing your PhD early doesn’t provide you with extra time on the clock: when the clock expires, either your promotion packet is sufficient to merit tenure, or you’re dismissed. Maybe your packet would have been good enough had you stayed in grad school for another year and did more research, but the tenure committee won’t care about that. Hence, some people rationally determine that they might want to stay in grad school for more years in order to construct a better research portfolio.</p>
<p>In some cases, the tenure clock doesn’t start until after you receive the PhD regardless of when you actually become an Assistant Prof, and yes, some schools will allow you to work as an Asst. Prof prior to formally completing the PhD. That then encourages some people to simply delay their PhD for as long as possible. Why not? If you can hold a tenure-track junior faculty position without starting your tenure clock, why wouldn’t you? Now, obviously, there is some limit to this strategy, usually no more than 1-2 years, or else people would never finish their PhD’s. Nevertheless, the academic tenure ‘game’ encourages people to graduate at a slower pace than they otherwise would.</p>