PhD in 3 yrs?

[echod]

---

Members don't see this ad.

After finishing my first yr of med school, the idea of completing my PhD in 3 yrs has become very attractive. Any ideas about how to do it? Is this a bad idea?

Thanks a lot!

 

[Gfunk6]

It can be theoretically done and has been done many times before. Often, there is an incredible amount of luck coupled with hard work involved. Some schools have 3 years of mandated PhD training upon which you automatically receive your degree. Many would argue that this is not a "real" PhD. The best way to stack your chances is to (a) go to a llab where 3 years has been done before, (b) spend 1-2 summer rotations in the lab before starting your thesis work and (c) pray really hard b/c you really want the data to fall your way.

 

[IBleedGreen]

I would have to agree with GFunk. I'm planning to do my PhD in 3 years, but I worked in the same lab for several years as an undergrad, so I'm already up on the research/techniques and I know the PI. I know another student who did hers in 2 years in a different lab, but she did her Masters work in the same lab before entering med school. I think it really depends on your PI and how familiar you are with the field. Mine understands that the MD/PhD path is different than the PhD track, so he understands my time constraints and wants to help me meet them. If you seriously want to do it, I'd suggest getting set up ASAP with a PI so you can start learning the ropes and figuring out how you'll get the work done. Good luck!

 

[tr]

I think it really depends on your PI and how familiar you are with the field. Mine understands that the MD/PhD path is different than the PhD track, so he understands my time constraints and wants to help me meet them.

Yes, I want to underline this.

Seven years total at my school is not uncommon (we get 1 or 2 students who do it per year). Since our 3rd and 4th years are compressed into 15-18 months, this translates into 3.5+ years of research.

I'm going to grad in 2007 with 7 years total, and for me and most of the other students I know who did this it was very heavily PI-dependent. We all had PIs who were independently motivated to get us out quickly.

Often, your typical PhD involves some number of years slaving away on an ambitious but unsure project that gives you nothing but negative data. For a few lucky people, these projects eventually work out. More commonly, there comes a point when the PI takes pity on you and directs you/allows you to direct yourself towards something less exciting but more reliably fruitful. This can happen at pretty much any point during your training. If your PI doesn't care about getting you out, it might happen at year 5 or 6. If your PI is motivated to get you out, it might happen at year 2. Most of the PhD students I know (myself included) say they got 90% of the data for their theses in their last six months to a year of research.

Other things that are helpful are either knowing the field/lab very well already (as others have mentioned), or choosing a field in which data are generated at a rapid and/or highly controllable rate. These fields include fly/worm genetics, human functional imaging, theoretical/computational biology, and epidemiology (where you set the length of your study at the beginning). Stay away from mouse genetics (can take years to generate a mouse) and primate in vivo recordings (can take a year to train the monkey).

 

[QofQuimica]

After finishing my first yr of med school, the idea of completing my PhD in 3 yrs has become very attractive. Any ideas about how to do it? Is this a bad idea?

Thanks a lot!

I finished my PhD work in just under 3 years, but I came in already having my MS and with several years of synthetic experience. I also worked my butt off (I was studying for the MCAT, applying for med school, etc. at the same time), and I basically had no life outside of school and work for the whole time, especially the summer that I studied for and took the MCAT. I think that what other people said is right on: try to pick a field where you have lab experience and don't need to learn all new techniques, work on two or three projects at a time so that you have a better chance of one working (I had four projects; I completed two and didn't complete two), and check the prof's graduation record. The last thing is probably THE single most important piece of advice I could give to any new grad student. Always ask the older students what it's like working for this prof, find out how many people s/he has graduated (just read the prof's website, and you'll get a feel for that), and how long it takes people to get out of that lab on average. My MS prof regularly graduates people in 7 years on average....for a straight PhD. 😱 My PhD prof usually gets people out in 4.5-5 years, assuming they come into his lab with just a BS. It actually took me just as long to get my MS as it did to get my PhD. (To be fair, though, I was a lot more motivated and worked a lot harder the second time, but still....)

 

[tr]

QofQuimica, your 'diene' avatar is fabulously awful! 😀 Where do you get all these chemistry puns? They remind me of the kinds of things that my undergrad profs used to have hanging all over their doors.

 

[QofQuimica]

QofQuimica, your 'diene' avatar is fabulously awful! 😀 Where do you get all these chemistry puns? They remind me of the kinds of things that my undergrad profs used to have hanging all over their doors.

Thanks, I drew it myself. 😀 See, all that chem drawing software actually came in useful even after grad school. 😛 But I have to confess that I stole the idea. I don't know, tr, I think that all of the bad chem puns just get passed around, and they keep resurfacing here and there as outbreaks whenever people's guard is down. UG organic profs and instructors are the natural reservoirs of bad chem puns. 😀

I wasn't planning on changing my avatar, but Arsenic decided to "fix" my background on the old one for me, and needless to say, I had to come up with a new avatar....he killed the crazy chem woman beyond repair. 🙁

 

[mdphd2b]

Totally agree with above posters. It's mainly dependent on LUCK, which means good quick data AND an understanding PI. Most of us end up in a lab where the PI has the same standards for MD/PhD and straight PhD students. If that happens, you're pretty much in for the long run! Definitely try to find a place with a good track record for getting MD/PhD students out on time--it can be done, but it's also dependent on department/program/thesis committee requirements. With careful planning, we've had a few students get a 3-year PhD, but these are definitely in the minority here at Pitt.

I myself took just under 4 years. Like other posters have said, the data and publications in my PhD thesis originates from my last 6 months worth of work! Prior to that, I had about three years of hard work on crappy projects and negative data (read: non-existent mentor). Somehow things all worked out in the end, but it was pretty depressing (the last PhD student who graduated from my lab took TEN years--the maximum limit--to get his PhD, but he had many other issues). So anyway I consider myself lucky to be done in 4 yr 🙂

Good luck and think carefully before comitting to a lab.

 

[echod]

tr,
isn't it bad to be PI-dependent? i always had that idea that we should try really really extra hard to "challenge" ourselves before putting out the SOS signal.

Yes, I want to underline this.

Seven years total at my school is not uncommon (we get 1 or 2 students who do it per year). Since our 3rd and 4th years are compressed into 15-18 months, this translates into 3.5+ years of research.

I'm going to grad in 2007 with 7 years total, and for me and most of the other students I know who did this it was very heavily PI-dependent. We all had PIs who were independently motivated to get us out quickly.

Often, your typical PhD involves some number of years slaving away on an ambitious but unsure project that gives you nothing but negative data. For a few lucky people, these projects eventually work out. More commonly, there comes a point when the PI takes pity on you and directs you/allows you to direct yourself towards something less exciting but more reliably fruitful. This can happen at pretty much any point during your training. If your PI doesn't care about getting you out, it might happen at year 5 or 6. If your PI is motivated to get you out, it might happen at year 2. Most of the PhD students I know (myself included) say they got 90% of the data for their theses in their last six months to a year of research.

Other things that are helpful are either knowing the field/lab very well already (as others have mentioned), or choosing a field in which data are generated at a rapid and/or highly controllable rate. These fields include fly/worm genetics, human functional imaging, theoretical/computational biology, and epidemiology (where you set the length of your study at the beginning). Stay away from mouse genetics (can take years to generate a mouse) and primate in vivo recordings (can take a year to train the monkey).

 

[tr]

tr,
isn't it bad to be PI-dependent? i always had that idea that we should try really really extra hard to "challenge" ourselves before putting out the SOS signal.

Sure. The more independently you work and the longer you take to graduate, the more you learn. AOTBE, seven years of PhD will teach you much more than three years of PhD.

But that's not what the OP asked. He's already decided he wants to finish in 3, and is asking for advice on how to do it. He didn't ask whether his education would be improved for taking five years instead (it surely would, though the question of "was it worth it?" would inevitably arise).

(And be apprised that, very commonly, the actual thesis is mostly made up of 'post-SOS' material. So "challenging yourself" (which I take to mean sticking with the interesting-but-fruitless project for an extra year, or two, or three, yes?) may add lots to your education, but probably won't add much to your final product.)

 

[captaintripps]

I am interested in this thread, good information so far. Just wanted to ask how the timeline to the PhD is influenced by completing the qualifying exam asap. I am in a DMD/PhD program - recently passed this exam and hope to start and complete a thesis project in 2 years. Guess it depends on a particular programs requirement for becoming a candidate and focusing exclusively on a dissertation.

 

[QofQuimica]

I am interested in this thread, good information so far. Just wanted to ask how the timeline to the PhD is influenced by completing the qualifying exam asap. I am in a DMD/PhD program - recently passed this exam and hope to start and complete a thesis project in 2 years. Guess it depends on a particular programs requirement for becoming a candidate and focusing exclusively on a dissertation.

I don't know how it works for you guys, but in my department, it was completely irrelevant when you qualified as long as you had signed up for one semester of dissertation hours. (In other words, you couldn't qualify the semester you were graduating, but you could qualify the semester before.) I think I qualified a year before I graduated.

 

[mdphd2b]

I am interested in this thread, good information so far. Just wanted to ask how the timeline to the PhD is influenced by completing the qualifying exam asap. I am in a DMD/PhD program - recently passed this exam and hope to start and complete a thesis project in 2 years. Guess it depends on a particular programs requirement for becoming a candidate and focusing exclusively on a dissertation.

In my program, you need to amass a total of 40 PhD dissertation credits to be eligible to graduate with your PhD. You cannot earn PhD dissertation credits until beginning the semester AFTER you pass your comprehensive exam (aka "qualifiers"). Also, any graduate coursework hours left will subtract from the total amount of PhD credits you can earn per semester....So YES, it is highly advised in this situation to take your comps early, since the sooner you pass your comps (and finish your graduate coursework), the sooner you can amass full-time PhD dissertation credits. Prior to passing your comps, your research credits are just "directed study" which are totally worthless toward your PhD!

Other programs may be different, so make sure to find out the details early.

Good luck

 

[Myempire1]

I am trying really hard to get out in 3. It's hard though, especially if you pick a high-tech field that requires a lot of reagent generation or a difficult techique to learn like patching onto cells in brain slices.

Some things have stood out to me to get out fast:

1. I agree that the PI is important, because some PIs will let you out with less. If your PI is less interested in getting you trained/graduated and more interested in papers/data, you need better stuff to get out in 3 than in 4 (i.e. great data will get you out in 3, while decent data may get you out in 4 or 5).

2. The thesis committe is important too: if you have somebody on you committee that requires a 4 year minimum, than kiss you chance of getting out in 3 goodbuy.

3. Focus

4. Publications: if you walk into your thesis committee meeting with 2 publications in the review process, they will look at things differently and are more likely to get you out.

5. Make your intention to graduate quickly clear. Depending you your situation, you may need to remind your boss and committee that you want to get out in 3 years.

But that's just my partially-informed 2 cents.

 

[relentless11]

I am interested in this thread, good information so far. Just wanted to ask how the timeline to the PhD is influenced by completing the qualifying exam asap. I am in a DMD/PhD program - recently passed this exam and hope to start and complete a thesis project in 2 years. Guess it depends on a particular programs requirement for becoming a candidate and focusing exclusively on a dissertation.

The only way I can see taking an early QE influencing your completion of the PhD is by increasing the amount of time you can devote to research. The coursework may sometimes cut into research time during the first 1-2 years. But I think the time it takes to get a PhD is more dependent on what everyone else said (e.g., PI, thesis project, thesis committee, etc).

As of earlier this week, I just finished all of my required coursework (1 year), so planning to take the QE soon just to get it out of the way. If all goes well I should finish my PhD in 3 years as well. One of the PhD candidates in my lab will finish in 3 years too, and my thesis will build off of his, so it shouldn't be impossible🙂.

On a side note, passing your QE usually bumps you up in terms of $$ 😀 . Without passing the QE, I max out at graduate student researcher (GSR) II, but once I pass the QE, I can go all the way up to GSR V or something which has a higher salary but also dependent on how much money the lab has.

 

[Hard24Get]

What's the rush? 😕 Isn't it better to do a PhD where your committee and advisor respect you for getting a "real" one, and to get the extra publications to jumpstart your research career? Most importantly, it seems to me the more experience/better you get, the more productive post-doc/residency research you will have.

I am trying really hard to get out in 3. It's hard though, especially if you pick a high-tech field that requires a lot of reagent generation or a difficult techique to learn like patching onto cells in brain slices.

Some things have stood out to me to get out fast:

1. I agree that the PI is important, because some PIs will let you out with less. If your PI is less interested in getting you trained/graduated and more interested in papers/data, you need better stuff to get out in 3 than in 4 (i.e. great data will get you out in 3, while decent data may get you out in 4 or 5).

2. The thesis committe is important too: if you have somebody on you committee that requires a 4 year minimum, than kiss you chance of getting out in 3 goodbuy.

3. Focus

4. Publications: if you walk into your thesis committee meeting with 2 publications in the review process, they will look at things differently and are more likely to get you out.

5. Make your intention to graduate quickly clear. Depending you your situation, you may need to remind your boss and committee that you want to get out in 3 years.

But that's just my partially-informed 2 cents.

 

[Newquagmire]

this is off topic, but i wanted to get a sampling of what you think. in getting out in 3 years, what's more important - hard work/time committment or smart work/experimental design?

 

[tr]

this is off topic, but i wanted to get a sampling of what you think. in getting out in 3 years, what's more important - hard work/time committment or smart work/experimental design?

I'd say 5% hard work and 95% good exptl design.

 

[Scottish Chap]

this is off topic, but i wanted to get a sampling of what you think. in getting out in 3 years, what's more important - hard work/time committment or smart work/experimental design?

Working HARD and working SMART. Experimental design is how we think it works and 95% of the time we're dead wrong. Most good publications come about by reverse engineering.

 

[tr]

Experimental design is how we think it works and 95% of the time we're dead wrong. Most good publications come about by reverse engineering.

On a large scale that's true; but on a small scale I think a good 'nose' for exptl design is about the best thing you can have on your side.

Unfortunately, I don't think you can really know whether you have this until you get out there and try it. There was a student in my lab who didn't strike anyone outside the lab as being particularly clever or impressive, but he had an absolute instinct for biological experimentation, and he sailed through his PhD with outstanding results. Then there were others of us who looked better on paper and talked a better game, but we didn't have the knack that he had, and we all struggled harder for less return.

 

[Scottish Chap]

On a large scale that's true; but on a small scale I think a good 'nose' for exptl design is about the best thing you can have on your side.

Unfortunately, I don't think you can really know whether you have this until you get out there and try it. There was a student in my lab who didn't strike anyone outside the lab as being particularly clever or impressive, but he had an absolute instinct for biological experimentation, and he sailed through his PhD with outstanding results. Then there were others of us who looked better on paper and talked a better game, but we didn't have the knack that he had, and we all struggled harder for less return.

10 years of independent experience so I've tried it.......and I, too, thought that lab work was easier than the classes.

 

[tr]

10 years of independent experience so I've tried it.......and I, too, thought that lab work was easier than the classes.

Sorry, my comment wasn't directed at you; I know you've a strong science background. I was just making a general statement about biological research. For the newbies on the board. 😉

 

[echod]

On a large scale that's true; but on a small scale I think a good 'nose' for exptl design is about the best thing you can have on your side.

Unfortunately, I don't think you can really know whether you have this until you get out there and try it. There was a student in my lab who didn't strike anyone outside the lab as being particularly clever or impressive, but he had an absolute instinct for biological experimentation, and he sailed through his PhD with outstanding results. Then there were others of us who looked better on paper and talked a better game, but we didn't have the knack that he had, and we all struggled harder for less return.

tr I think you're so right about you never know who has IT and who doesn't. I used to think that I can tell by instrinct, but not anymore.

 

[Myempire1]

What's the rush? 😕 Isn't it better to do a PhD where your committee and advisor respect you for getting a "real" one, and to get the extra publications to jumpstart your research career? Most importantly, it seems to me the more experience/better you get, the more productive post-doc/residency research you will have.

I agree with this. It's not worth getting a PhD unless it's a real one. But if you can learning how to do some respectable science, pick up good techniques, and publish solid papers in 3 years, why not do it. Also, a hot graduate school career may help you get a better post-doc, but it doesn't appear to be the most important thing in our career. It seems like the post doc is what matters in the long run: if you publish big in your postdoc, you get a good faculty position.

Unfortunatley, I am biased in this opinion. I picked a lab with a poor track record and unfocused PI. So I have a jaded view on things like this; I want to publish my papers, graduate, and move on to a better lab.

 

[squareDR]

Tangible advice:

Ask mentor how much you are expected to do before graduation and does his expectation include putting in a certain number of years into your Ph.D instead of simply work output (If yes, run screaming).

Second, figure out what your projects will be ahead of time. I say projectS because at the very least, you must have a lofty goal project and safety net project (preferably conducted concurrently)

Third, be efficient with your time and don't think that spending thirteen hours a day in lab is automatically going to give you a PhD. Get off your a$$ and get to work.

Intangible advice:

Success in research is dictated by hard work, brains (experimental design and foresight), technical skill (great to have ideas but it won't get you anywhere if you are careless at the bench and don't pay attention to details) and an insane amount of LUCK.