Like other courses in India, can the course duration for a Ph.D be fixed for a particular time period?
Please keep in mind that we are talking about two different interests here:
On one hand, the PhD adviser and the institution have invested significant resources in training the PhD candidate and they might want to put the talent of the individual to use as soon as possible and for as long as it is possible or allowed.
On the other hand, the PhD student wants or needs to finish his/her work, graduate and get a job.
In most cases, both, the PhD adviser and the student want to have as many publications from this work as possible. The difference here is EXPERIENCE. The graduate student has not acquired the experience the adviser has. Advisers come in many forms. Some are very involved with the student, some never get involved. This is where having a carefully selected committee comes into place.
Everybody needs to consider that science is completely unpredictable and therefore subjecting a graduate student to the requirement of finishing a publication or a set of experiments should be considered carefully. There is no time limit in science and a student can pursue a path that can go on for years. There is however, a limit to the number of job opportunities one has and that's why limits on PhD duration are useful.
I have met in my career hundreds of successful postdocs that had no prior publications as graduate students. I have met technicians without a PhD with publications in Science and Nature. I have also met hundreds of postdocs with publications in very prestigious journals that are not able to pipet accurately or even calculate the molar concentration of a buffer.
Finishing a successful publication can take a very long time and the requirement for graduation should not be "once the paper is published or once the experiment is finished" because the reviewing process is also time consuming and the student should not be "punished" for how long that process takes.
I think the most successful student-adviser relationships are based on mutual and open communication with clear goals from the beginning where the committee is involved because even if we don't like it, human relationships have their ups and downs and the student should not pay for the poor judgement or planning of the adviser and viceversa .
For example: Imagine a graduate student that works for 4 years isolating an enzyme that is present in very low amounts that nobody has described before. If the student is successful at isolating such enzyme, he/she would need to characterize it. Now, imagine the student has barely enough enzyme to characterize it and the freezer breaks overnight and everything thaws or the vial where he/she keeps the enzyme falls and the floor and the enzyme spills.... what now? should the student start from zero? after 4 years? I don't think that would be fair. Now imagine the adviser has invested all of his/her resources in that student. I can imagine how frustrating that must be. Where is the publication in this scenario? without characterization there will be no publication. Does that mean the graduate student did not do a good job? I don't think so. Does it mean the PhD adviser did not do a good job? I don't think so either.
Scenarios like this happen everyday in graduate schools all over the world. In other scenarios, the student leaves without finishing, gets married, changes advisers or the adviser changes schools, is fired, gets married, decides to leave science all together. In the most critical scenarios, one of them could die.... think about all the possible combinations. They are endless.
This is why students, PhD advisers and more importantly, the student's committee should set Plan A as well as Plan B ahead of time with clear goals and milestones to decide the course of action. Those milestones should have time frames associated with them. If any of the people involved (student and/or adviser) fails to meet his/her end of the deal, the committee should step up to make sure nobody gets the short end of the stick and the milestones are reached within the time frame proposed.
NO.. If you want to do genuine research, you can't bind it with time. PhD is a research work and you are supposed to come out with some novel findings. So how can you decide when you are having a time bound schedule. At every step in research, you find a new direction. So as far as completing a PhD with a genuine work is concerned, time should not be a factor.
Now-a-days some of the government universities in India have set up a time limit of four calender years for a PhD completion. I believe this is a sufficient duration for a researcher to do his work. If he is unable to do so, he has the option to take an extension for one more year.
It should be fixed and it is fixed in some institutions to 4 years. Professors and students need to be realistic about the goals they set for a research project. It is the student's life and time at stake. Students should set realistic goals for themselves at the start of the projects. I have seen students stuck in PhD's for 6 yrs. I have seen students finish their PhD's in 3 years.
I guess that a short answer is often, how long is your scholarship? 3 years, 4 years?
I did mine in 2 years and 2 month! one reason was that I was enjoying my research from 7 to 7, 6 days a week. I see to many PhD students these days thinking that it is a 9 to 5 job that it!
When a candidate gets a scholarship, a time frame is already set in his mind about when he has to complete his work. Without fellowship, he will try to compile asap. Side by side i have seen people engage in some teaching activities also. So scholarship is a big factor, yeah.
Its always gud to treat it as a degree and complete it asap bcoz after phd, an entirely different world is waiting for you.
PhD can be "fix" by certain number of credits and publications. I would not limit PhD student by a certain period of time.
Please keep in mind that we are talking about two different interests here:
On one hand, the PhD adviser and the institution have invested significant resources in training the PhD candidate and they might want to put the talent of the individual to use as soon as possible and for as long as it is possible or allowed.
On the other hand, the PhD student wants or needs to finish his/her work, graduate and get a job.
In most cases, both, the PhD adviser and the student want to have as many publications from this work as possible. The difference here is EXPERIENCE. The graduate student has not acquired the experience the adviser has. Advisers come in many forms. Some are very involved with the student, some never get involved. This is where having a carefully selected committee comes into place.
Everybody needs to consider that science is completely unpredictable and therefore subjecting a graduate student to the requirement of finishing a publication or a set of experiments should be considered carefully. There is no time limit in science and a student can pursue a path that can go on for years. There is however, a limit to the number of job opportunities one has and that's why limits on PhD duration are useful.
I have met in my career hundreds of successful postdocs that had no prior publications as graduate students. I have met technicians without a PhD with publications in Science and Nature. I have also met hundreds of postdocs with publications in very prestigious journals that are not able to pipet accurately or even calculate the molar concentration of a buffer.
Finishing a successful publication can take a very long time and the requirement for graduation should not be "once the paper is published or once the experiment is finished" because the reviewing process is also time consuming and the student should not be "punished" for how long that process takes.
I think the most successful student-adviser relationships are based on mutual and open communication with clear goals from the beginning where the committee is involved because even if we don't like it, human relationships have their ups and downs and the student should not pay for the poor judgement or planning of the adviser and viceversa .
For example: Imagine a graduate student that works for 4 years isolating an enzyme that is present in very low amounts that nobody has described before. If the student is successful at isolating such enzyme, he/she would need to characterize it. Now, imagine the student has barely enough enzyme to characterize it and the freezer breaks overnight and everything thaws or the vial where he/she keeps the enzyme falls and the floor and the enzyme spills.... what now? should the student start from zero? after 4 years? I don't think that would be fair. Now imagine the adviser has invested all of his/her resources in that student. I can imagine how frustrating that must be. Where is the publication in this scenario? without characterization there will be no publication. Does that mean the graduate student did not do a good job? I don't think so. Does it mean the PhD adviser did not do a good job? I don't think so either.
Scenarios like this happen everyday in graduate schools all over the world. In other scenarios, the student leaves without finishing, gets married, changes advisers or the adviser changes schools, is fired, gets married, decides to leave science all together. In the most critical scenarios, one of them could die.... think about all the possible combinations. They are endless.
This is why students, PhD advisers and more importantly, the student's committee should set Plan A as well as Plan B ahead of time with clear goals and milestones to decide the course of action. Those milestones should have time frames associated with them. If any of the people involved (student and/or adviser) fails to meet his/her end of the deal, the committee should step up to make sure nobody gets the short end of the stick and the milestones are reached within the time frame proposed.
I think it all depends on some factors: 1) scholarship time (mostly 4 yrs), 2) succes rates in research activities, 3) coaching by professor and 4) personal effort. I see many students thinking a PhD study is a normal job from 9 to 5, but I can tell you it isn't !!
A very realistic approach by Maria Corena-McLeod ·... But very sad to say that most of advisors don't realize such situations as you mentioned in second last paragraph
I think everybody in this discussion knows that PhD is a degree. So there is no question of considering it as a degree. It is of course a degree which one gets after research and it should of course be genuine.
So it should not be good to say that if it is a degree then there should be a time frame for it. The question puts up the two things collectively.
It doesn't matter whether the degree is obtained in which way and what has been done to get it in present circumstances.
Question is whether it is ethical to set a time frame for a PhD degree? If Yes, what could be its possible consequences, no ifs and buts, but a concrete decision is required in this case. Because once a time frame is set for it, student will start thinking of the date of completion rather than the completion of research work and the standards which he is required to meet during his research. Even advisors will have a date in mind on which he has to set the student free of his duties as a research scholar.
I put up a question here. Whether this will be justice in part of the student as well as the advisor. Will they be able to do justice with their capabilities? I don't think so.
Yes as far as the question of scholarship is concerned it should be such an amount that the researcher meets his research and basic needs without looking for any other assignments (like part time teaching etc.) to support his livelihood.
Thanks all
Regards
HI Kashif
Infact the time for Ph.D. has been fixed in many Institutes, in India and you get extension with only a very valid explanation fro both the Advisor and the student...
In certain Central Universities in India, the duration has been fixed to four years and in case the student is not able to complete the degree, he has to get the permission for extension from the Vice Chancellor of the university and the application has to be duly forwarded from the research guide.
I suggest that the fixed time is OK. In my country it is 3-4 years. Of course, Ph.D. student should work hard to spend time with maximal efficiency. It is very important to have clear goals and aims appropriate for the research school. In most cases Ph.D. students continue their M.Sc. research and this way is usually productive.
I don't think that a there must be a mandatory fixed time for the research programme, especially, minimum required duration. If a researcher has achieved significant progress in within a time smaller than the fixed time, he may be give the chance to complete his doctoral studies early. Those who require more time for the completion of the research shall be granted enough time for that. But necessary steps should be taken to verify that the quality of research has been taken place in the allotted time.
Of course, the quality of research is essential. This can be evaluated by publications in international peer-reviewed journals with high impact factors.
No..it can not fixed. some research takes 2 year to finish and some takes 7 years...therefore it is not time bound.
PhD is not time bound. It depends on the problem and how you solved it. Minimum 3 years is required as per guidelines of UGC.
It could be fixed and there are concrete options:
https://intranet.ucf.edu.cu/index.php/prueba-2/res-pos
Thank you all for your valuable time to address this question. However I still believe this question should require more discussion as many of the talented researchers leave the idea of opting for Ph.D. just because of the time duration.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education