Is it possible to get a PhD in Physics in 2 years in the US?

[1v1Dota2RightMeow]

I have a ton of things I want to do in my life before I'm young. The problem is that I won't be so young for long! Ideally, if I get my PhD in about 2 years I will be on track with the things I want to do. Has this been done before? Why exactly is the average time needed 4 years? Why that number?

 

[phyzguy]

I've never heard of anyone doing it in two years. Even four years is unusual, I doubt that is the average; 5-6 years is more typical. Typically the first year is spent on course work - it is possible to save some of this time if you can test out of all of the required courses. Then you have to identify a thesis advisor, find a thesis topic, and do quality research that merits a PhD. It just takes time. What is your background? Have you taken graduate level courses in Mechanics, E-M, QM, and Statistical Physics?

 

[tionis]

You can get a PhD in less than that if you can prove that you know everything there is to know about physics by passing the exams and stuff. Also, have your thesis ready. I can't remember who it was that did this, but the dude just walked inside a university from off the streets, asked to take the exams, passed them all and handed his thesis. It turned out he taught himself physics, and all the university required of him was to do about a year's time with an adviser just to satisfy minimum assistance. True story.

 

[Vanadium 50]

True story.

Then you should have no trouble posting a reference.

I've never heard of anyone doing it in two years.

Me neither.

 

[gleem]

For the 10 youngest Ph.D. awarded see http://www.gradschoolhub.com/10-youngest-people-ever-to-achieve-a-doctorate-degree/

Interestingly even by graduating from college as a teenager most of these people still took more than two years to earn their doctorate. So compare yourself to these persons and draw your own conclusions.

 

[tionis]

Then you should have no trouble posting a reference.

I read it in a book about string theory a few years ago. Don't remember the tittle, but it was in one of the chapters that discussed the string revolution. I vividly remember that the thesis was so revolutionary, that they did his defense in a cafeteria in Aspen in one of the string conferences. The guy knew more than the professors, so they all joked that it was a mere formality. They just pulled two tables together and he passed his defense right there and then.

 

[jtbell]

Typically the first year is spent on course work - it is possible to save some of this time if you can test out of all of the required courses.

Where (in the US) can you test out of graduate courses?

 

[Sam I Am]

Where (in the US) can you test out of graduate courses?

In the physics department at Cornell, there is only one required course, an experimental lab class. As long as your can pass the preliminary exam showing adequate knowledge of undergrad courses and your research advisor doesn't deem others necessary, you can get by with just the one.

 

[1v1Dota2RightMeow]

Let's say that I can get a phd in 2 years. Would you recommend it? Is there anything to be gained from spending more time on it (even if the extra time is unnecessary)?

 

[George Jones]

Gordon Drake did it 50 years ago and went on to a distinguished career in theoretical atomic physics (and to become an editor at Phys. Rev. A), but he did an M.Sc. before his Ph.D. (3 years of grad study), though at a different university. I believe he did his B.Sc. in three years (but don't have a reference), so B.Sc, M.Sc., and Ph.D. in a total of six years.

Look at years in which degrees were awarded at

http://www1.uwindsor.ca/physics/dr-gordon-drake-1

An outlier.

 

[phyzguy]

Let's say that I can get a phd in 2 years. Would you recommend it? Is there anything to be gained from spending more time on it (even if the extra time is unnecessary)?

What is your reason for wanting a PhD? Personal satisfaction? Do you want a faculty or research position somewhere? Do you just want to learn some things? Answering these will help answer your question.

 

[1v1Dota2RightMeow]

I am completely lost in what I think I should be doing with my life and career. I never had someone to give me advice growing up so I've kept it all stifled until now, but now I need serious advice on my life.

I like technology, psychology, philosophy, business/economics. I have ideas in a huge number of fields that will result in massive improvements for all humanity that will combine biomedical engineering, computer science, and business.

I'm working on completing my bachelor's in physics right now, but the question of whether or not I should get my PhD is coming up. I'm 24 years old, but I'll finish my bachelor's at 25 and then begin my PhD at 27 due to family constraints.

Is it even worth it? I figure that the best use of a PhD will be to get me a steady job. I can't really imagine myself doing research and working at a university all my life. I have too many ideas in too many different fields. I'd feel suffocated.

My current plan is to get my PhD done at age 31, and THEN begin to work on the things that really give me enjoyment in life. Yes, I know this sounds absolutely ridiculous, but I've received so much resounding advice from older people saying to just get the PhD because it is invaluable in your later years.

Please feel free to be as brutally honest as possible. I need someone to lay it straight, regardless of my feelings.

 

[1v1Dota2RightMeow]

What is your reason for wanting a PhD? Personal satisfaction? Do you want a faculty or research position somewhere? Do you just want to learn some things? Answering these will help answer your question.

Personal satisfaction and to be able to work almost anywhere. But my curiosity is also a factor here. I do want to learn about the universe. But then the question is this: can't I just learn endlessly from my house? Why do I need the degree in that case? It seems meaningless in that scenario.

Please help.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I read it in a book about string theory a few years ago

I don't believe this. In practically every university - if not every university - the thesis defense is public. You don't just decide to do this in Aspen (where they don't have a cafeteria, just a kitchen).

 

[tionis]

I don't believe this. In practically every university - if not every university - the thesis defense is public. You don't just decide to do this in Aspen (where they don't have a cafeteria, just a kitchen).

I will search google books to see if I can find it. I've read so many books that I forgotten which one it was.

 

[Lucas SV]

Why can you only start at 27? is it financial issues? Also where would you be willing to live? Are you willing to relocate? If not can be done about getting a PhD earlier, what would you do in those two years?

Interesting that you'd find university research suffocating. By the way, if you are thinking of going to interdisciplinary research (as it seems to be the case) look at institutes that offer this.

I agree with the advice of getting a PhD. I can't speak from myself, since I will be applying (younger than you) for next year, but that is what I hear: both academia and industry values a PhD.

Now this is my opinion, but I think you should focus on one thing, at least for now, even though you like going off in many different directions. A PhD would be great for that too.

 

[gleem]

Perhaps it is Neil Turok?

In the summer of 1983, many theorists gathered at the resort station Aspen in Colorado to ponder about the whole issue. Paul goes there and along the side, he has another job – to conduct a Ph.D viva voce examination of a candidate named Neil Turok of Imperial College , London , whose thesis had been sent earlier to Paul for scrutiny. And this is where Neil enters the picture and let us now turn to his part of the story. But before that, a few parting words from Paul: “Because both Neil and his adviser, David Olive, were attending the Aspen workshop, Neil’s oral presentation was arranged to take place at the Aspen Institute on some afternoon during our time there – a fanciful location for a thesis defence, to be sure.

Although Neil’s thesis was mostly mathematical in nature, with only one section somewhat related to cosmology, I decided to focus on that portion during the oral presentation. I wanted to test whether he had any serious interest in this area. I was very impressed by the outcome. Although he was obviously new to cosmology, Neil displayed an unusual combination of technical prowess, creativity, and self-confidence. I passed him, of course. But in addition to that, I made a mental note to follow this talented fellow’s career and look for an opportunity to collaborate with him in the future.” That had to wait for many years though.

From http://media.radiosai.org/journals/Vol_06/01JAN08/04-musings.htm

 

[Vanadium 50]

Turok took three years at Imperial, but normally in the UK system one already has completed one's classwork and received a masters before starting a PhD.

 

[TeethWhitener]

My current plan is to get my PhD done at age 31, and THEN begin to work on the things that really give me enjoyment in life.

Why can't you work on those things now? Trust me, if getting a Ph.D. is not something that will give you enjoyment, you very well may not succeed. And you almost certainly won't succeed in 4 years.

 

[ZapperZ]

Personal satisfaction and to be able to work almost anywhere. But my curiosity is also a factor here. I do want to learn about the universe. But then the question is this: can't I just learn endlessly from my house? Why do I need the degree in that case? It seems meaningless in that scenario.

Please help.

What do you think is involved in a PhD program? Just "reading books"?

There are several issues here:

1,. There is a difference between learning physics and being a physicist. The former you MIGHT get by "reading books" and papers. The latter is an OCCUPATION that requires MORE than just learning a specific material. Read my "So You Want To Be A Physicist" essay and figure out for yourself if everything I wrote in there you can simply acquire from books. Do you still think it is a "meaningless" endeavor?

2. What makes you think you can teach yourself, even by just reading books, the necessary material? What makes you think you have the capability to comprehend what you read? How would you know the difference between something that is "important" versus something that is just "interesting"?

3. How will you be able to judge that you have mastered the knowledge? Just because you've read an entire book does not mean you've learned and understood the material. Many of my students can claim the same thing, yet, many of them still crashed in exams that tested them on that material. How will you know that you're not one of them?

It is extremely annoying that many people seem to think that the process of learning physics involves nothing more than just "reading books". I would never go to doctor whose training involves only "reading books" (ignoring the fact that a medical degree will not be granted to someone without medical internships). Not only is this a rather wrong and naive view of what is involved in a physics program, but it ignores a whole HUGE part of physics, which is experimental work.

Zz.

 

[Choppy]

I like technology, psychology, philosophy, business/economics. I have ideas in a huge number of fields that will result in massive improvements for all humanity that will combine biomedical engineering, computer science, and business.

Great! But even the best of us can only really focus on one thing at a time. And bringing a big idea to fruition can take a lot of time and effort. So, at some point you'll need to pick a direction.

Is it even worth it? I figure that the best use of a PhD will be to get me a steady job. I can't really imagine myself doing research and working at a university all my life. I have too many ideas in too many different fields. I'd feel suffocated.

A PhD is not job training. It's basically an apprenticeship in how to be a scientist and most of them are completely geared towards academia. You can get a steady job without it. If all you want is to increase your employability or earning potential, you might want to look into other educational avenues.

Further, the PhD is the ultimate form of specialization. If you feel that you would really struggle with this - working on one thing for 4-6 years of your life - a PhD may not be the right path for you.

My current plan is to get my PhD done at age 31, and THEN begin to work on the things that really give me enjoyment in life.

There's a problem with this. First, you're delaying your own happiness. "I'll be happy when..." is a dangerous phrase to use, because not only does is lock you down to misery in the present, but it puts a lot of eggs into a basket about which you have little to no evidence as to whether or not it will work the way you think. The world doesn't change once you have your PhD. Sure, it feels nice to convocate and move on with your life, but 99.9% of your daily interactions, particularly the ones with family and friends won't change.

Second, if the PhD doesn't bring you happiness in and of itself, the avenues that it opens up are unlikely to as well.

 

[ZapperZ]

And by the way, what do you think is "theoretical physics" that you seem to want to do here?

Zz.

 

[cosmik debris]

Here in Electrical Engineering 4 years is what we aim for for a PHD, the very odd few have done it in less.

 

[radium]

The shortest I've heard in the U.S. was something like three years and the very few examples are all really exceptional and did not get their PhDs recently. People rarely even get them in four these days. Even people who could do so often elect to stay longer to get more publications.

 

[1v1Dota2RightMeow]

What do you think is involved in a PhD program? Just "reading books"?

There are several issues here:

1,. There is a difference between learning physics and being a physicist. The former you MIGHT get by "reading books" and papers. The latter is an OCCUPATION that requires MORE than just learning a specific material. Read my "So You Want To Be A Physicist" essay and figure out for yourself if everything I wrote in there you can simply acquire from books. Do you still think it is a "meaningless" endeavor?

2. What makes you think you can teach yourself, even by just reading books, the necessary material? What makes you think you have the capability to comprehend what you read? How would you know the difference between something that is "important" versus something that is just "interesting"?

3. How will you be able to judge that you have mastered the knowledge? Just because you've read an entire book does not mean you've learned and understood the material. Many of my students can claim the same thing, yet, many of them still crashed in exams that tested them on that material. How will you know that you're not one of them?

It is extremely annoying that many people seem to think that the process of learning physics involves nothing more than just "reading books". I would never go to doctor whose training involves only "reading books" (ignoring the fact that a medical degree will not be granted to someone without medical internships). Not only is this a rather wrong and naive view of what is involved in a physics program, but it ignores a whole HUGE part of physics, which is experimental work.

Zz.

Ok, point made. But then that just makes me depressed. I don't know what I'm really looking for with a PhD, much less with any career. Physics is the one subject I've studied intensely up to this point.

I guess I had high aspirations to be like Leonardo da Vinci (substitute in anyone you want who has mastered many fields). I enjoy learning, but on my own terms. That, combined with an interest in many fields, compelled me to want to be like da Vinci, Cicero, and Charlie Munger. But then I sometimes ask myself - to what end? Will it make me happy to be able to simply know very terse and difficult topics in all my areas of interest? Then what becomes of that thing I do for money, oh what's it called...oh - a job?? If I'm learning so many things, which one do I pick to make me money so that I can live off of?

Here's my awkward and probably-likely-to-fail plan: finish my Bachelor's degree in a year, work at whatever company hires me for a bit while I build up my side businesses that I want to try. Then, once those businesses are stable, I go back to finish my PhD. Feel free to rip this apart if you think it will fail for any reason.

I should warn you all that I tend to overthink things, which is why I enjoy learning physics and math. My mind feels like it can roam freely to rigorous ends.

 

[1v1Dota2RightMeow]

And by the way, what do you think is "theoretical physics" that you seem to want to do here?

Zz.

I basically divided the types of physics careers into 2 parts: theoretical and experimental (as is common, I supposed).

I never grew up doing science experiments, but I did enjoy reading a book about science experiments to do (we were very poor and couldn't afford to buy the tools necessary). I also read the encyclopedia and the dictionary for fun.

That's why I chose theoretical physics. I'm already in the habit of visualizing things, so I figured that if I had to pick one of the 2 types of physics I would chose theoretical.

I think of it as, in essence, reading about the results of experiments and coming up with new theories (which in turn lead to new experiments). And the cycle just goes on and on...

 

[Choppy]

I guess I had high aspirations to be like Leonardo da Vinci (substitute in anyone you want who has mastered many fields). I enjoy learning, but on my own terms. That, combined with an interest in many fields, compelled me to want to be like da Vinci, Cicero, and Charlie Munger.

There's nothing wrong with aspiring to do great things. In fact that should be encouraged, in my opinion. But you have to balance grand aspiration with realistic expectations and from there develop a realistic plan to accomplish your goals.

Will it make me happy to be able to simply know very terse and difficult topics in all my areas of interest? Then what becomes of that thing I do for money, oh what's it called...oh - a job?? If I'm learning so many things, which one do I pick to make me money so that I can live off of?

Remember there's a difference between education and vocation. The two are correlated, but because you study a particular subject does not mean you have a career in that field - particularly true for academic subjects. This stage of the game is probably a good time to start thinking about developing a vocational skill set that will help you get a job once you graduate. That doesn't have to be your exclusive focus, but worth spending some quality time on.

Here's my awkward and probably-likely-to-fail plan: finish my Bachelor's degree in a year, work at whatever company hires me for a bit while I build up my side businesses that I want to try. Then, once those businesses are stable, I go back to finish my PhD. Feel free to rip this apart if you think it will fail for any reason.

There's nothing wrong with that plan - provided you have a realistic understanding of what's involved. For one, it's very difficult to start a successful business. Most new businesses are not successful. And you'll probably have to put a lot of time into it. So between working full time to support yourself and starting these businesses on the side, you won't have a lot of time for much else.

You also have to think about the gap between your undergraduate time and your PhD. Taking a year or two off is generally fine and in some cases it can be a good thing - allowing you time for personal growth, travel, save up some money, etc. But if you're out for too long, you have to thing about stagnation of your skills. If you don't open a physics book for five years while you're trying to get your business off the ground, that could be a hurdle to admissions and then if you do get in, you'll have to pass a comprehensive examination and keep up with other new graduate students who are a little more fresh.

 

[eri]

The average time a physicist spends in graduate school (masters and PhD) is 7.5 years according to the American Physical Society. That includes several years of graduate level coursework, a qualifying exam, defending a PhD topic, doing the research, sometimes meeting a minimum number of publications, and then defending the PhD itself. I've known some to get out in as little as 4 years. I've known some to take more than 12. I was right on average myself.

No, physics careers are not either 'theoretical or experimental'. Even with a PhD, very few people do just theory (and theorists are far more likely to be employed at universities than anywhere else). Many people do computational work of some sort, or working with data that they didn't gather themselves directly.

It sounds like you want to get a PhD because you think it will make you happy, or more employable. The fact is that it's not going to do either if that's why you're doing it. The jobs that require a PhD in physics are few and far between; it's not going to set you up for a career anywhere you want to live unless you're willing to teach high school (and get qualified to do so, because while a PhD will qualify you to teach at a university, it will NOT qualify you to teach at a high school).

A PhD is not a test of how many books you can read, or what you can memorize. It's going to ask you to make an original contribution to your field. Have you done any research up to this point? Have you worked on an original project with anyone? Do you even know if you're going to enjoy it?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Where (in the US) can you test out of graduate courses?

MIT. All you need is to pass the general exams and take two grad physics courses outside your area of concentration. At least that was the case from 89-95 when I was there.

 

[Lucas SV]

Turok took three years at Imperial, but normally in the UK system one already has completed one's classwork and received a masters before starting a PhD.

Is that not true in the U.S? What are generically the requirements to start a PhD in the U.S?

 

[Dishsoap]

Is that not true in the U.S? What are generically the requirements to start a PhD in the U.S?

A BS in physics

 

[Vanadium 50]

In the US one usually enters a PhD program after a BS and picks up an MS (or not) along the way.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The average time a physicist spends in graduate school (masters and PhD) is 7.5 years according to the American Physical Society. That includes several years of graduate level coursework, a qualifying exam, defending a PhD topic, doing the research, sometimes meeting a minimum number of publications, and then defending the PhD itself. I've known some to get out in as little as 4 years. I've known some to take more than 12. I was right on average myself.

7.5 years in graduate school (masters and PhD) seems to me a little on the long side -- I'm surprised that funding is not capped at about 6 years. At my alma mater (University of Toronto, but this should apply to most if not all Canadian universities), one generally start a PhD program after first completing a masters degree (which is generally 1-2 years in length).

My understanding is that once a student is enrolled in a PhD program, it is generally expected that he/she finish his/her PhD in 4 years, and the funding is usually capped at 4 years (for a total of 5-6 years in graduate school). Students who need to extend their PhD program past the 4 years will need to apply an extension for extra funding from the department or from government agency funding like NSERC, or otherwise will obtain private funding.

Do PhD students in physics in the US generally are funded past the 5 year mark?

 

[ZapperZ]

Do PhD students in physics in the US generally are funded past the 5 year mark?

"Funding" is not that straight-forward of an issue. If the student receives a RA, then the funding depends on the PI that is supporting the student. So however long the research grant is, and often, one gets moved from one research grant to another, then the student will continue to get funding as long as the PI is willing to support him/her.

If the student is not receiving RAship, but rather continue to be a TA, then the department pays for his/her tuition and stipend. It is then up to the student's advisor to decide when that student should finish.

Unless the school itself puts a limit on the length of time that a student can stay on, then there is no official cut-off period other than what the students and his/her advisor decide.

Zz.

 

[StatGuy2000]

"Funding" is not that straight-forward of an issue. If the student receives a RA, then the funding depends on the PI that is supporting the student. So however long the research grant is, and often, one gets moved from one research grant to another, then the student will continue to get funding as long as the PI is willing to support him/her.

If the student is not receiving RAship, but rather continue to be a TA, then the department pays for his/her tuition and stipend. It is then up to the student's advisor to decide when that student should finish.

Unless the school itself puts a limit on the length of time that a student can stay on, then there is no official cut-off period other than what the students and his/her advisor decide.

Zz.

That system is similar to the situation in Canadian universities, with the exception that if a PhD student continues to be a TA, his/her tuition and stipend is capped at the 4 year mark, at least as far as my understanding is concerned. Don't know about funding based as a RA in Canada (perhaps other Canadian PF members can weigh in here).