Au contraire, “Those who received research assistantships had the shortest time to degree.” Doesn’t sound to me as if the work supervisors are slowly their candidates cown.

student t, at 8:10 am EST on March 28, 2006

Is there really a problem?

I don’t understand what “the problem” is and why it’s “essential” to shorten the time to degree. The article does not address the consequences of why a lengthy time to the Ph.D. is a problem. Some fields of study warrant several years of full-time work prior to entering the Ph.D. program (like certain areas in education, for example). The article appears to be biased toward a speedy time to degree completion, but it does not explain why.

Rob, at 10:20 am EST on March 28, 2006

Remember, not everyone starts a Ph.D. program right away. As the study states “Total time to degree is the number of years between when a candidate received his or her baccalaureate degree and the Ph.D.” Many doctoral students, especially in education, are starting their program after a successful first career in edcuation or a related field. Average time is closer to 5 years, and I will finish in 4 years, even while working full time.

DN, Doctoral student, at 10:25 am EST on March 28, 2006

Time to PhD

What’s silly is the way of calculating the time to degree. It’s expedient to base it on the time between earning the bachelor’s degree and the PhD, but that doesn’t mean it’s a useful measure. I received my PhD 11 years after my BA, but I spent 4 years of that time working outside of academia, so I spent 2 years on the MA and 5 years on the PhD, which seems a good pace to me.

Rachel, at 10:25 am EST on March 28, 2006

Response to questions about time to degree measure

Hello IHE readers —

Thanks for your comments on this article — nice to have people reading so thoroughly and carefully. The NSF study looked not just at total time to degree (which many of you have rightly questioned the adequacy of as a measure) but also at “registered time to degree,” the time a doctoral candidate actually spends enrolled in grad school. I had left that measure out, for expediency’s sake, but based on your questions, have added the numbers in the table and elsewhere in the article. So I hope that presents a fuller picture. Best, Doug

Doug Lederman (author), at 11:30 am EST on March 28, 2006

Sea Changes

“Time to Degree” is actually a red herring. I would prefer that the profession focus on what is done in the time.

In thirty years (as chair, director of programs, coordinator of freshman comp as well as 4/4 “infantry”), I have seen new and used Ph.D.’s shell-shocked in their first years on the job. Why? Grad school doesn’t do what it needs to do to prepare fine teachers; it depends far too much on a person’s native gifts for teaching. Aside from a disciplinary (or “content”) curriculum should be REQUIRED full courses in (1) counseling (adolescent counseling for traditional-aged student bodies, adult counseling for re-entry-based schools), (2) writing (not only scholarly papers, but curriculum design, proposals, minutes, syllabi, recruiting letters, self-assessments, letters of recommendation, grants and probably 20 other kinds of writing I can’t think of right now, with a few no-holds-barred lessons on grammar and usage), (3) public presentation, not only for professional conferences, but for addressing the faculty in a school or division, for “outreach” (now commonly expected by many colleges), and for classroom effectiveness (yes, some of us need work, feedback and guidance here—a slumped class isn’t always the fault of students’ short attention spans). And under this category should be personal presentation: as grad students are neither fish nor fowl, collegiality is an alien concept when they land on a faculty which already has its own dynamic.

Within courses that already exist, older professors from all sorts of other schools should be frequent guest-lecturers to upper-level students: upcoming Ph.D.’s could then get a glimpse of life in a research university, a tiny liberal-arts college, or a faith-based school (or even the latest phenomenon—a faith-based university). Visiting profs could also tell their stories about their achievements, and probably give a more realistic sense of time lines, family life, and meeting personal and professional goals. Mid-career profs could offer tales of the tenure-track, and second- and fourth-year reviews. I think what the resident profs would hear from their would-be Ph.D. students might prompt adjustments and start urging the graduate school experience more toward actual preparation.

So, the time of completion to getting a Ph.D. should be determined by meeting these academic, professional and personal criteria: lots of analytical thinking, a good bit of creative thinking, a professional point of view, and ability to adjust personal proclivities for the sake of a better learning atmosphere. If this takes ten years, fine. If it takes three, fine. I am simply saying, “Git er done.”

Larry TCG, at 1:00 pm EST on March 28, 2006

Why it takes too long to finish a PhD program

As someone on the long track, I can say that the primary reasons for taking too long to finish are departmental requirements (in my case nearly 3 years of coursework) and lack of financial support at the end of the program. My department has dealt with the first problem to some degree, but not with the more important latter issue. As a result, many students spend a great deal of time and energy applying for various grants and fellowships, all of which are extremely competitive and for which the applications are quite time-consuming. Moreover, many people end up working on or off campus several days a week, which drastically reduces the time one can spend on the dissertation. And the final problem is standards. Yes, I hear time and time again on these sorts of websites that the best dissertation is a done one, but that’s not what all committee members think! Many students write several drafts in order to fulfill high expectations. So what is to be done? I think increasing financial support for students in the later years of the program so that they can work on their dissertations full time would make the biggest difference.

Soc ABD, PhD Candidate, Sociology at University of Chicago, at 6:10 pm EST on March 28, 2006

Preparation for teaching/PhD

I would like to second Larry’s comments and repeat a few points: not all will be teaching at Large State Research U. Students need to know about teaching evaluations, difficult colleagues, and how to create and execute courses of different types as well write and give research papers. Furthermore, if PhDs were familiar with more types of institutions (perhaps internships for a chance to try things out for a semester?) they would have fewer difficulties in entering the market. Being told the week before class, “cover half the book” as we were in the late 70’s, no longer makes it as preparation for teaching!Les, at small liberal-arts college

Les, at 8:05 am EST on March 29, 2006

I completed my PhD in 6 years. It could have been in 5 had I not put the dissertation on the back burner for a year. I worked full time (music director), coached full time as well as built a house and all the responsibilities a family of 4. I do not understand why there is the discussion. If a person wants it, they will get it. If a person is not disciplined enough to work consistently I do not see where it is the university’s responsibility to coddle a doctoral student. How about a little cheese and crackers with all the whining.

r wells, at 5:30 am EDT on March 19, 2007