PhDs, European or American?

 If European PhDs are shorter than American PhDs, does this affect the quality of the eventual PhD?

Having degrees from Nigeria, Canada, Switzerland, and the U.S., and having closely examined the educational systems in the U.K. and Australia and worked closely with Ph.D. students and graduates from these countries, I think I’m somewhat familiar with the various international educational systems. I think the difference in duration between European (particularly U.K. and largely Australian) and American Ph.D. programs does influence the nature of the education and research experience, potentially affecting the quality of the eventual Ph.D.

I think, in many European countries, including the U.K. (and Australia), Ph.D. programs are typically shorter and more focused. Students specialize early, leading to a narrow but deep understanding of their subject area. This focused approach means that students spend most of their time on their dissertation, diving deeply into specific research questions from the outset. The downside, however, I would say, is the potential lack of breadth in their education, as they have less time to explore adjacent fields or interdisciplinary topics. This can result in graduates who, while highly knowledgeable in their specific area, may lack a broader understanding that is often valuable in academic and professional settings.

In contrast, U.S. Ph.D. programs are longer and emphasize a broader educational experience. Students typically spend the initial years taking coursework across various disciplines, allowing them to build a wide-ranging knowledge base before focusing on their dissertation. This approach can foster a more well-rounded scholar who is better prepared for interdisciplinary research and collaboration. However, it can also mean that U.S. Ph.D. students may take longer to achieve the same depth of expertise in their specific area of study compared to their U.K. counterparts.

While many European Ph.D. students enter their programs with a master's degree (and in many cases, an M.Phil), allowing them to complete their Ph.D. degrees in as little as two-three years, most U.S. Ph.D. students also enter with a master's degree but still spend an average of seven years completing the program. This difference reflects the broader educational approach in the U.S., which includes significant coursework and interdisciplinary training.

Ultimately, the quality of a Ph.D. is not solely determined by the length of the program but by the opportunities for deep research, the support and mentorship available, and the individual's dedication and ability to leverage their education effectively. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, and the best fit depends on the individual’s career goals and learning style.

COMMENTS

I think this is the best response to this particular question that I could have imagined.

I think your observation and analysis are mostly correct. However, I am of the opinion that the set of qualities and skills one gets from a UK PhD and the likes is a proper subset of that offered by the US PhD program. The reason is very obvious from your observation. In the UK, they spend two to three years concentrating mostly on their dissertation directly. Do you really think those five to seven years spent in the US are all spent on general coursework? No. I don't think you think so either. You already said they spend their first two years or so on breadth rather than depth, right? What of the remaining three to five years spent? Where do they go into? Depth. That's the answer. That's exactly what I meant by proper subset. So, in the US system I sincerely believe that you end up strong in both breadth and depth at the end of those long years. I honestly don't see any weakness in the US PhD system at all, at least not from your analysis if you really think about it well and make the right deductions from your observation. They're simply not the same. Three to five years difference is just a lot to make the difference in quality tangible. That's my honest opinion.

I have found that my colleagues who were educated in the US system do you seem to have a much more well-rounded understanding of their primary and adjacent fields. I would also argue that my colleague from the UK because of the differences between A-levels and high school seem to have focused earlier and tended to specialize earlier moving towards completing the dissertation faster. It's worth noting the US system does not require external validation/review in the same way that a PhD is in the UK. The faculty that are voting on whether you deserve a PhD is generally from the same university in the US but in the UK if it is still the way it was when I left it had to be external, validated by people who are not invested in your degree, and who don't know you and thus I might believe it meets the measure of new knowledge and impartiality at a level that the US degree does not (possibly)

I did my undergrad in my country before I traveled out. In my undergrad you can't get your degree if you don't have a validation from an external validator or whatever they're called. But in the US there's nothing like that. Now, getting here I have seen a lot of exceptional graduates from my field, many I can't even match at all. They weren't subjected to any external validation but their education system is just not comparable to what I got even though I was the best graduate from my school. All I am trying to let you know is that how does external or no external validation relates to quality of exposure and degree? Nothing at all. When one PhD education system is clearly above the other you don't bring in things like external validation to try to justify anything. What has that got to do with it. Imagine a group of faculty members who are undoubtedly some of the bests in their fields globally, attesting to your qualification for the PhD degree. Why would you need external validation again? For bais reasons? No. That's very rare. That's why the average starter of a PhD program here in the US doesn't finish; it's a 50–50 thing because of the rigor. So no external validation is needed because you must have published quality papers in your field with peer reviews. That alone is more than an external validation from an individual.

Also, I don't expect a discussion of A-levels at all. PhD level work is nothing compared to A-levels and high school. They should be completely left out of the topic. We talk of PhD after at least a solid undergrad or master's exposure. If you can't compare A-levels to advanced undergrad courses then how does completing it make you qualify for a faster PhD? It's just too low. Here, what qualifies you for an early start of your PhD program is completing an accelerated master's as part of your undergrad. That makes a lot of sense because it's truly closer to what you'll experience at the start of your PhD.

See, I understand that when it really comes down to individual comparison, everything I said really doesn't matter. A UK PhD can be so exceptional that they stand out. Please don't get me wrong. All I am comparing are the two PhD systems which I sincerely don't see how one is not clearly better than the other, generally speaking. But on an individual basis, there's no way we can make any meaningful comparison. I will be honest with you, I truly don't believe in a two-year PhD program at all. If you doubt me, please go and research how easily a PhD from the US can easily get a job if they choose to work elsewhere and even in the UK, and then compare the reverse situation. If you were a director in the industry and let's say you have no time to interview two applicants: one did a two-year PhD and the other a five-year PhD. No interview and that's all the information you have about them. You just have to pick one. Who would you pick? I mean which would you trust at first sight without any further information?

I also think the significant time spent as TA’s (Teaching Assistants) in the US does impact the duration of doctoral pursuit. Many European Universities do not require TA duties and as such significantly reduces the time taken to complete your studies. Also worthy of mention, the concept of the TA component is not only teaching experience but tbh more so to earn a side income. Many Euro Unis include a salaried remuneration package for PhD candidates, a stark indication of how they view their PhD candidates, which is closer to an employee rather than a student as in the US system. I recently met an Ethiopian student at a technical training program at a US state university (a really hard working and awesome dude btw) and he recounted how much time he spends as a TA, however (and rightfully so) he was grateful that this component was included since it was his only source of income in the states. And as someone who hails from the Americas, (and on the topic of getting a job in the states post PhD,) the US is VERY biased to qualifications and certifications that are non US. There is a reason students from the UK, Caribbean and Africa excel early on at US Universities, their foundation education is more robust than that at the US High School system finish line- and so, many finish the US undergrad ahead of the four year duration- not because the US system has more breadth and depth but because it’s doable coming in with a solid foundation. The same transcends to their PhD program- also the US PhD programs have way more taught courses than those of their European/UK counterparts, all this translates to more time taken to completion. So in addition to your well founded analysis (quite good btw) there’s also the above.

Talking about TA, I think you're right on that. The time spent on TA increases the time spent on the program. However, I still maintain that three to five years difference is huge enough to make a tangible difference in quality. Your TA hours is a very small fraction of those extra years, considering that you also TAed in your first two years.

Before I came to the US I used to hear that we are better than US students because our education system is stronger, like you mentioned. Coming here, I saw for myself and realized that's simply not true. Truly, I came out the best where I did my master's in the US, but it wasn't because I had a better education or exposure or that the African system is better, no. That's a big fallacy. I would attribute my success to my hardwork. I saw in their undergrad curriculum many many things not taught in my undergrad program back at home. I am from Africa. I don't know about their secondary school here. I don't know how it compares to ours but if I would choose one for any child I wouldn't hesitate to pick the American education because of the well-roundedness of its education system. It also depends on the district. So, coming back to undergrad and graduate education I think it also depends on the school we are talking about. Please never compare an average American undergrad or graduate program to the best in African countries. The former is better than the later. The only thing that makes a good student from Africa do well in the US is the hardworking culture they have already built in themselves. It's far from the truth, based on my personal experience here, to say that most african students top their class when they get here. What I do know is that the ones that are already doing well tend to maintain their streak of success by continuing to work hard. But when you attend a top school in the US, your perspective would change completely. You will see a lot of exceptionally brilliant American students. I tell you that because I attend one. But that doesn't make good African students fall behind if they're still willing to put in the effort required for success.

I would compare the best in the UK to best in America and average in the UK to average in US. The very best in the UK and the very best in the US, for instance, Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, etc are more or less the same. But you would notice that the US has far more of such (but that's because it's much bigger. So, it's not really a point to support my position). But comparing an average in the UK to average in the US, I sincerely think the US comes out higher.

I understand your point of view- since you also speak from personal experience, I appreciate you sharing it- thanks for that, and you’re absolutely right, comparisons need to be made on similar parallels the best against the best, average for average and so on. However I gave my perspective from an overall vantage point - Ivy Leagues and Ivy League Plus unit (or the top universities as you’ve pointed out)represent 0.5 to 2 percent of a 2.1 million average high school to college cohort transition (3.5 million on average actually graduate from high school), so of course you’ll see brilliant American students, you’re talking top tier- as such, your personal experience speaks for a minute fraction of a much bigger cohort (in other words what’s true for Ivy Leaguers does not hold true for the rest of the US). I have attended institutions in the UK (Scotland), Austria and Michigan/US, and yes your opinion bears much weight as I previously acknowledged (no argument there, you’re spot on). But taken on average, Caribbean and UK students ( my opinion of African students here would be trumped by yours as someone coming from Africa, although my experience has seen very academically strong Afro students)- are more academically prepared than US students in great part because of the secondary school curriculum they came from with subject specific emphasis and deeper syllabus content dives from an earlier age (whether this is good or bad I honestly don’t know). US universities send college reps to high performing secondary schools in the Caribbean to promote their institutions (since God knows when). But respectfully, I accept your views and opinions, more than that I also share much of it standing in agreement. I’ve just grown up in and around the American and British systems so that my view like yours is molded from my own personal experiences. So that I don’t think I’m right and you’re wrong or vice versa, just that we speak from and guided by our individual personal experiences. As such our views are our own truths : )

I believe this is controlled by the requirement to have an external member of the committee present at the dissertation defense. I certainly did that and invited a professor from a different reputable university and flew him to my defense at my own expense including meals and housing. I think this is the norm for US PhD programs. My research area was particularly specialized so finding an appropriate external member was a challenge. However, even at my university I had 4 members of my committee and only 1 was in my particular area which was Veterinary Immunology. The remaining 3 were in toxicology, pathology, and molecular biology. I had to be completely up to date in all those fields before my candidacy exam. Not an easy challenge.

During my research period, I only met with these professors when necessary to utilize their equipment. some weren’t even in my particular school at my University (Cornell). Cornell is divided into numerous separate schools within the University and even then some were state-funded and others private so a very complex place to work. Paying for services in these circumstances was a complete disaster. I also performed animal work which required a lot of legal and administrative hurdles not to mention the expense. I had to self-fund all these things myself and my initial project assigned to me by my major professor at the beginning was to write a grant to get the funding. Not easy from the get-go but it was highly educational and perhaps the most pertinent aspect of my training which was indispensable later in my research career. To write the grant I had to learn a great deal about my subject so it was a real challenge. I did not have a clue what I would be doing when I started the PhD so it was a very steep learning curve. You get zero help doing any of this as that is part of the character-building aspect of the training. I am unsure what would have happened to me should I have not received a grant for my research. As it happened it wasn’t an issue. They still treated me like crap the entire time there.

For my us phd I had to have a person outside of my area that i did not know, so that we had someone not invested in my work.

This opinion was well thought out! I have often been of the view that the US PhD is absolutely stronger than whatever Europe has to offer. Nevertheless, I can make concessions since length of a study does not particularly guarantee depth and breadth even though, with all things being equal, that’s what it was intended for. Most things depend on individuals, the environment, the institutions, and many other factors that deter one from an intended goal.

there is a simpler explanation, in the U.S you can enter a ph.d program straight out of a bachelors degree. so it takes the time of an MA degree - 2–3 years plus the dissertation, in europe you usually hit the ground running with a postgraduate degree in hand.

I have never seen a Ph.D. (in germany) completed in two/three years and realistically / the median (when the thesis is finished) is more like six years but it depends on the field (the medical area is completely different). From my experience the Ph.D. in the US is more “schooled”. Our Ph.D. candidates normally work after their master’s degree in a research project - maybe have some additional courses in scientific writing but that’s it. Then they publish their papers etc. In the U.S. afaik you have more like a Phd school you need to attend but then get you Phd (of course after writing your thesis). Correct me if I am wrong ;)

In US doctoral programs, there is usually only another year or so of coursework post-Master’s, and a lot of that is reading credits which prepare the doctoral student for qualifying exams and the dissertation prospectus/proposal. However, there is often significant teaching responsibility and in some fields, a lot of research projects and lab work that can sidetrack students from paying full attention to their dissertation research. It can be very distressing because it could take someone more than 2 years post-Master’s to get their research “off the ground.” Add to that another 4–5 years, then you can see why it’s not unusual to finish a PhD in the US 8 years or so after the bachelor’s degree.

I see. Then it’s similar in US and Germany (I don’t know about the rest of the EU) regarding the time but without the course work in the beginning. The PhD candidates here usually also have some teaching responsibilities.

I believe it also depends on the PhD subject and related funding. Put aside multi-disciplinary PhDs such as international development/affairs/management for a moment and look at physics, chemistry, biology. In those disciplines, the quality of the PhD graduate will be influenced by a variety of factors such as competitive entrance exams (GRE etc) as well as funding/publication related to the production of the undergraduate thesis as well as the funding/publications for the PhD program. I remember the Nobel laureates being asked this question with their response being that access to funding is a big factor in determining research success and publications. The competitive exam also helps produce better PhD graduates. Case in point: More than half of the Nobel laureates got their PhDs in the U.S. from these 3 sciences with these factors playing a heavy role.

I got my PhD from Kings College, London, and it took seven years to earn it. Almost all of that time was spent writing the dissertation to the standard expected of KCL. It was less about developing knowledge in the subject area than about learning how to conduct and present research.

Two points—one, in truth, American undergraduates just aren’t as well read as many European undergraduates. And, in the humanities, that is really a very big difference between American and European Ph.D. students. European students are just better prepared to begin research work sooner because their primary and undergraduate education was probably more rigorous than our grade-inflation everyone gets a 4.0-plus American education. Second, in some fields, seven years in a Ph.D. program isn’t even the average. Not too long ago, in History at least, the average was closer to 10–11 years! This was published in the American Historical Association Perspectives. I think it’s now becoming less, but certainly it’s not uncommon to see Ph.D. students in the Humanities finish in their 8th, 9th, or 10th year.

Having worked with PhD graduates from top universities in the UK, I would not agree with the ‘knowledge base’ in their specific research area where their PhD thesis lies is anything deeper than their peers graduated from the US and Canada institutions. In fact getting their research published in peer-reviewed journals is often not a requirement in the UK while at least two publications are usually expected for calling for an exit in North America. This has implications to the preparedness for a career as an independent researcher and university teacher.

Why this question always pop as Europe PhD are shorter, as if my university in Europe, and every university that I know of it is 4 years, extendable until 6 if needed.

Where do you guys take this info from?

It is not shorter, standard is 4 years, most people do it in 5.

Actually most people quit.

With both my undergraduate and masters from the US (Cornell and Brown) but my PhD overseas in the English/European system (New Zealand) and now, as a professor in Europe, I have formed a view of things that is not scientific as much as it is from observation and encounters with folks on both sides. (Full disclosure: I was accepted into the PhD program at MIT but had turned it down, naively thinking at the time that PhD programs must be the same everywhere so this is a topic my thoughts turn to from time to time.)

From what I’ve seen, PhDs in Europe may be attractive to many who see it as a 3 year commitment rather than a longer, even open-ended one, as is sometimes the case in the US. While the comps in the US might weed out a lot of candidates before they even begin their dissertation, the assumption that a strong application is sufficient in Europe may allow those who lack critical competencies into a PhD program and begin their dissertation immediately, picking up what is needed as they go along.

Once in, the process seems geared towards getting out by publishing 3 papers. It is argued that this is sufficient for one to qualify as an academic capable of contributing to the field. This is not necessarily a bad metric, to be sure, but things can become a game of publishing tenuously related papers followed by finding some thematic thread that ties them together somehow. (Contrast this with the perspective of producing a dissertation that is grounded in a thesis that drives the publication output, which may be very minimal or highly prolific, depending on the subject.)

I have met folks who can contribute to the field, as proven by their PhD, but I do not think would have been able to complete an equivalent American program. Such people may drag down the overall quality of the the PhD when averaged over all PhDs but I hasten to add that it doesn’t diminish the high quality of the cream of the crop in Europe, which are indistinguishable from those from the US. To be clear, I am not saying that higher quality PhDs are limited to the US or otherwise not found in Europe. Rather, I say that lower quality PhDs seem easier to attain in Europe. So, in response to the original question, the shorter PhD may not affect the quality of the eventual PhD — as argued by others — but, it could and, taken over a large sample, it may do that on average.

German Ph D duration is much longer than that in the US. In AI, there is no Ph. D. thesis written in 2–3 years, but it is normally 6 - 7 years, often in a paid position with additional duties in lecturing and assistance. The volume of the theses and the coverage of topics is also larger than in the US.

In the past, earning a PhD in Europe required 5–8 years, but in the last decade it has been shortened to 4 by introducing the so-called 3rd level of studies. This results in poor quality graduates who receive a PhD, because the supervisor had to promote the PhD student just so he could take the next step in his own career.