A PhD thesis - fast or extensive ?

[Wiemster]

What would you say is best for a career in science, provided that you have the choice:

- Do a PhD much faster than average (with an average number of publications), or
- Take the average time to produce a very extensive thesis (with more publications) ?

 

[twofish-quant]

- Do a PhD much faster than average (with an average number of publications), or
- Take the average time to produce a very extensive thesis (with more publications) ?

I don't think that the question makes any since because you really don't have these things under your control.

 

[the_house]

I don't think that the question makes any since because you really don't have these things under your control.

That's not true at all. In a U.S. graduate program, the point at which you have done enough work to comprise a Ph.D. dissertation and to graduate is highly subjective, and is often a matter of choice (between you and your adviser, and also perhaps a supervisory committee.)

I know a number of people who had technically done enough to be allowed to graduate, and had applied for a few postdoc positions. Then, if they didn't get any good offers, they stayed a Ph.D. student another year to publish more papers and improve their CV. Or, if they got a good postdoc offer after a short amount of time and only a few publications, they got their Ph.D. immediately and moved on to the postdoc position.

Obviously the amount of flexibility depends on your situation, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable giving advice about what the right decision is, but it's not true to say that such decisions do not exist.

 

[Reshma]

I think twofish-quant is correct. There are many things which are not within the control of the PhD student, especially when the work is in the experimental area. Unexpected delays can occur in obtaining experimental data simply due to factors like unavailability of resources, thus delaying publishing of results. I do agree the question the OP has raised is very subjective because there are certain areas of science where it is common to publish many papers in a short span of time.

 

[the_house]

As I said, it strongly depends on your particular situation, and I definitely agree that "There are many things which are not within the control of the PhD student, especially when the work is in the experimental area."

However, I very strongly disagree with the notion that the question "makes no sense" because a Ph.D. student never has any control over when they finish their Ph.D. It is definitely possible that the OP will some day have the choice to graduate at a particular time, or to wait and graduate later. Yes, it's also possible he/she won't have that choice, but it's a perfectly legitimate hypothetical situation to ask about.

 

[Wiemster]

In my country and field, you get paid for four years of research and are sort-of expected to publish something like the same number papers (which may include conference preceedings). Of course things are not so strict, so that yoy may get away with less papers or you can stay a little bit longer.

In the end, as long as you find a professor that is willing to organise your defence, and there's no objections from the comittee, you can obtain your PhD.

Now say you're extremely lucky, you drained your little research topic as much as you deem possible, and published four papers in two years. What to do next? Expand your research area a bit to see what more is out there to be added to your thesis? Or try to get your PhD and go for a postdoc?

I'm mostly interested in what you think will be looked at when you apply for a postdoc, or want to become a professor? Will it then be a good thing to have done your PhD (much) faster than average? Or should you stay and maybe try to receive your PhD with honours.

 

[Choppy]

My objection is that the question seems to imply that a student can finish a PhD "much faster than average" as a conscious decision - as if PhD work is akin to a homework assignment.

When you apply for a post-doc position, the quality of the work that you've done is usually the single biggest factor affecting the hiring decision (that you have any control over). So if you're asking if a student should try to "cut corners" to finish more quickly, but with a lower quality thesis that what he or she is capable of, this would be a poor decision.

I would avoid purposefully extending the PhD thesis beyond it's natural conclusion as well. If you're sticking around because you have no other options that's one thing, but once you've gotten out of it what you need, move on.

 

[twofish-quant]

I know a number of people who had technically done enough to be allowed to graduate, and had applied for a few postdoc positions. Then, if they didn't get any good offers, they stayed a Ph.D. student another year to publish more papers and improve their CV. Or, if they got a good postdoc offer after a short amount of time and only a few publications, they got their Ph.D. immediately and moved on to the postdoc position.

But all of that is near the end of the Ph.D. dissertation. Once you have the basic material you need for your dissertation, you can almost always spend other year or do doing some most stuff like running more data.

However, when you get to the point where a dissertation is possible is something that I think is pretty much impossible to control at the start of the dissertation, which is where I think the OP was asking.

 

[twofish-quant]

In my country and field, you get paid for four years of research and are sort-of expected to publish something like the same number papers (which may include conference preceedings). Of course things are not so strict, so that yoy may get away with less papers or you can stay a little bit longer.

Just curious what country this is. In the US things work a bit differently.

In the end, as long as you find a professor that is willing to organise your defence, and there's no objections from the committee, you can obtain your PhD.

In the US, you get a Ph.D. when your committee thinks you deserve a Ph.D., but there is a minimum standard that the committee sets, and getting to that standard takes quite a bit of time and effort.

Now say you're extremely lucky, you drained your little research topic as much as you deem possible, and published four papers in two years.

If it takes you just two years of research to get a dissertation then I think most committees will think that the topic is too small.

I'm mostly interested in what you think will be looked at when you apply for a postdoc, or want to become a professor? Will it then be a good thing to have done your PhD (much) faster than average?

In the US, no one cares how long it takes you to do a Ph.D.

Or should you stay and maybe try to receive your PhD with honours.

In the US, "Ph.D. with honours" isn't a meaningful concept. In the process of doing your Ph.D., you should start to be a "member of the research club" and what people in the club think of you determines your future job prospects.

 

[bcrowell]

There is a process where you start grad school as someone with an undergraduate education, and then by the time you're done with grad school you're one of the world's foremost experts in one very tiny area of research. This is a process of maturation that tends to take a certain amount of time. In the U.S., you also typically have 1-2 years of coursework before you start research. Most people can't do this process in less than about 4-5 years, and the average in the U.S. is more like 6-7 years in physics. Of course some people might enter grad school with an exceptionally strong preparation and having already done a lot of research, but that would be very unusual.

Wiemster, I think the simple answer to your question is that if you trust your advisor, then your advisor can answer this question much better than we can. (If you have a bad relationship with your advisor, things become more complicated.)

 

[the_house]

There is a process where you start grad school as someone with an undergraduate education, and then by the time you're done with grad school you're one of the world's foremost experts in one very tiny area of research.

There are also countries where the "Ph.D. program" only refers to the final research phase, before which they have already completed all graduate coursework as well as some research, equivalent to a Masters degree in the U.S. In this case, it's not impossible to finish enough research in 2 years to constitute a dissertation (although, as twofish points out, it's certainly not something one can count on -- no matter how strong the student.)

Since the OP does not seem to be in the U.S., we're all basically making guesses. The best advice is really as you say -- the adviser is by far the best person to ask for this kind of advice.

In retrospect, everyone is probably correct in pointing out that it's not a particularly relevant question to ask at the beginning of your Ph.D. At that point, you can't really determine how long it will take to produce enough work for a dissertation (and to the extent that you have any control, quality trumps speed anyway).

Once you have already produced a certain amount of work, though, it can become a relevant question when exactly is the right time to finish and move on.

 

[Reshma]

- Do a PhD much faster than average (with an average number of publications), or
- Take the average time to produce a very extensive thesis (with more publications) ?

You should also know that a PhD dissertation is not merely a collection of your published works. It is actually a broader picture of all the work that you have done during your PhD tenure including the preliminary literature surveys and even unpublished results. Plus, it is fairly a common practice to publish the results of your PhD projects even after the submission of your PhD thesis.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

You should also know that a PhD dissertation is not merely a collection of your published works.

Indeed, depending on where you are and what field you're in, it may be common to not publish anything at all. I know plenty of people that had maybe a conference proceeding or two but zero publications, and it hasn't made any difference to them. Getting know to the people in your field is the most important part of finding a job afterwards.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Indeed, depending on where you are and what field you're in, it may be common to not publish anything at all. I know plenty of people that had maybe a conference proceeding or two but zero publications, and it hasn't made any difference to them. Getting know to the people in your field is the most important part of finding a job afterwards.

In what field is it common to not publish anything at all?

 

[fasterthanjoao]

In what field is it common to not publish anything at all?

Perhaps I chose a poor way of putting it. In any case, as an example, I know quite a few electrical engineers whose students finish their PhD with maybe a couple of conference contributions, but no actual publications. I have collaborations with a couple of bioengineering departments that are the same way, albeit more commonly because of commercial contract obligations.

I suppose my point was more than the emphasis on a PhD isn't about getting a high number of papers published. If you can, then great - but the important parts are to develop skills, and become immersed in the field.