Optimizing Graduate School: How Long is Too Long?

Optimizing Graduate School: How Long is Too Long?They say a few of the defining characteristics of a “person” are the high-level thought processes of rationality, wisdom, and self-awareness. As scientists, we should be willing to turn the microscope on ourselves and our own career path to see if a rational person would deem it wise to enter a graduate school process that can take up to a decade for some folks. Are our current educational and career development pathways truly optimized for students’ benefit, or have we let other factors slowly pull our profession out of balance?

To date, our research career introspection has addressed the ideal format of classes in graduate school as well as the optimal length required for a new professor to setup a lab. In this installment, we take a look at the the foundation of most researchers’ careers – graduate school. The first question we have to ask ourselves is – is there actually anything wrong with graduate school as we know it? Given that a majority of students would likely describe their graduate experience as follows,

Year 1: Optimism
Year 2: Motivation
Year 3: Frustration
Year 4: Depression
Year 5: Apathy
Year 6: Apathy
Year 7: Apathy

we’d have to say we’re probably not training the next generation of enthusiastic researchers the way we’d hope. Beyond anecdotal experience, graduation and dropout statistics also suggest we’re failing our graduate students. Wouldn’t we be better off as a profession creating the following educational experience for young scientists?

Year 1: Optimism
Year 2: Motivation
Year 3: Excitement
Year 4: Passion
Year 5: Passion
Year 6: Passion

To be clear, we are certainly not suggesting that the timeframe of graduate school is the sole variable responsible for the mental well-being of researchers. Graduate school is a complex system of moving parts, any one of which may impact a student’s experience and ultimate success as a scientist. However, by individually examining the various factors, we hope to identify areas where the educational and career processes may be optimized.

Before answering this question, take a moment to set aside any emotional baggage (we’ve all got it) related to your own graduate experience. Take an honest look at how long it should take to properly train a PhD. We’ll loosely define a PhD as someone who is an expert on their project (literature and techniques included), understands the the cutting edge questions the field is addressing and is capable of performing independent research (generate and test hypotheses, then publish them). While various fields may take longer than others due to the length of average experiments, try to imagine an “average student” in an “average field”.

At some point in graduate school, the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the student has basically learned everything they’re going to learn. Sure a third year grad student should be more proficient than they were as a second year, but is a 9th year significantly smarter than they were as an 8th year? We don’t think so either. When does that switch take place?

.

How long should it take to properly train a new PhD? (How long should grad school be?)

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

.

Just entering graduate school? We probably won’t be able to change the system in the next few months, but here’s a graduate school survival guide that might help!

.

.

3 comments so far. Join The Discussion

  1. Ragamuffin

    wrote on March 12, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    nice to see that 5 years is an agreeable average. some PIs in my department are set on getting their students through PhD's in 4 years, but all the students who I have seen/hear do so moved on to different fields (veterinary or law school). I'm not in a rush, and I adore my project — first-year optimism incarnate — and while I feel that I could perhaps become an expert in my niche of the field in 4 years, I don't think that I will have done everything I want to with my project in less than 5.

  2. alan@benchfly

    wrote on March 13, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    I think some exceptional students are probably done in 4, even if they end up staying a bit longer for whatever reason, but 5 is probably about right for most of us. Personally, I think after 5 it starts to do more harm than good.

    I'll be pulling for your first year optimism to evolve into 5th year passion!

  3. Yevgeniy

    wrote on March 13, 2012 at 1:02 am

    Nice article, Alan, and very timely too. I think the PhD system is in a dire need of fixing and restructuring, and I am glad that folks at Nature also agree with me. Here is a series of articles that weighs in on the current graduate education in sciences and the fact that is it supply driven, not demand driven. A memorable quote : “Widening concerns about dismal job prospects are dissuading the brightest candidates from the PhD route.”… Should we open that can of worms?

    1) Fix the PhD :http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7343/full/472259b.html – "No longer a guaranteed ticket to an academic career, the PhD system needs a serious rethink."

    2) The PhD Factory :http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472276a.html – "The world is producing more PhDs than ever before. Is it time to stop?"

    3)Reform the PhD system or close it down :http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110419/full/472261a.html – "There are too many doctoral programmes, producing too many PhDs for the job market. Shut some and change the rest"

    While 5 years seems to be an agreeable number, the natural question that arises is, what's next? Are we in for a 5 year post-doc?

    This is an excellent topic for discussion, but as Alan suggested, let's check the emotions at the door, this could be a touchy topic.

  4. alan@benchfly

    wrote on March 13, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    We're definitely going to get to the postdoc question- and I'd expect the responses will be wider ranging than they are here. When I first got into research, 2-year postdocs still existed. Now it's not uncommon to hear of 2nd postdocs. Not a good trend.

Leave a comment

will not be published