phd success rate

PhD completion: an evidence-based guide for students, supervisors and universities

Senior Lecturer in Management, Fellow of the APS College of Organisational Psychologists, Swinburne University of Technology

Disclosure statement

Timothy Colin Bednall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Swinburne University of Technology provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Many students enrol in a Master or PhD postgraduate research degree, but few complete them. From 2010-2016 , 437,030 domestic and international students enrolled in postgraduate research programs in Australian public universities. Only 65,101 completed within the same six year period.

This discrepancy does not necessarily mean postgraduate research students “failed” their degree. Common reasons not completing a degree include changes of career goals, work-family conflicts, poor health or financial strain. Alternatively, some students remain enrolled in their degree for long periods without making significant progress.

Even so, the discrepancy is large enough for universities to be concerned. Nobody wants a student to suffer through years of hard work and frustration without achieving their goal.

What does research say about completion rates?

Research has identified several factors that make students more likely to persist with their degrees. These factors are related to the students themselves, their supervisor, and the university environment.

Psychological studies of postgraduate students find the more successful ones tend to perceive themselves as competent and be intrinsically motivated . These are students who enjoy their topic area, perceive their postgraduate studies as a valuable learning experience, and who strongly identify with being a career researcher. Students who are motivated by external factors (such as pursuing a prestigious academic role) are more likely to say they want to quit.

Scholarship holders are more likely to complete their degrees. This is likely because they are academically stronger than non-scholarship holders and are less vulnerable to financial strain. Students can support themselves financially through teaching, research assistant roles or other work, but this must be balanced carefully. Part-time students are less likely to complete their degrees.

Students’ field of study also affects completion rates. A higher proportion of students in sciences tend to complete their degrees than those in arts and humanities. This is likely because students working in the sciences are more often involved in laboratory-based work in teams, where there is greater social support and knowledge exchange. People studying humanities more often work on their research alone.

A positive student-supervisor working relationship is critical. A good supervisor should be an expert in the student’s subject of choice and a supportive mentor. They should help the student navigate through the frustrations and uncertainties of writing a thesis, and help students adjust to the world of academia.

Students are also more likely to finish their research degrees if they have strong connections with their peers . Such connections help students develop their professional identity as researchers, as well as providing opportunities for social support and informal learning .

The quality of associated coursework is also important. Ideally, postgraduate programs should provide students with a sound foundation of research skills and content knowledge, and facilitate ongoing communication with their faculty.

Involvement in formal and informal professional activities is also important. Students who complete tend to participate in departmental events, such as research seminars and professional development workshops. They also tend to participate in academic conferences. These events allow students to learn and expand their networks.

What students and their supervisors should do

First, given the importance of the student-supervisor relationship, universities can provide advice to students about locating and approaching a suitable supervisor. Specifically, students should consider the research area they wish to work in and locate a supervisor with relevant expertise. They should approach supervisors with an openness to negotiating a research topic.

Read more: Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships – which is yours?

Both students and supervisors should be upfront about their expectations about how the supervision will work. An excellent starting point for discussion is the Expectations in Supervision questionnaire. Students and supervisors sometimes have mismatched expectations about how often they should meet, the amount of feedback the supervisor should provide on drafts, and how much counselling and emotional support the supervisor should provide.

Supervisors have an important role in providing a realistic preview of academic life. One useful exercise is to review an academic competency model, such as the Vitae Researcher Development Framework , to discuss which skills academics need. In addition to knowledge of their topic area and research methods, academics increasingly need to be good at managing complex projects, working in multidisciplinary teams, and engaging with industry and media.

This discussion should enable supervisors and students to plan how students will develop their capabilities. Alternatively, it could prompt some students to opt out of a research degree if they think an academic role is not compatible with their goals.

What universities should do

As well as providing research training, universities can also increase the capabilities of students by helping them understand self-handicapping patterns. These include busyness, procrastination and disorganisation.

Students can be guided to replace these with more helpful actions such as scheduling dedicated writing time, reframing difficult tasks as learning opportunities, and developing a work routine. This could be done as part of a workshop or supervisory relationship.

Universities should also encourage greater connectedness between research students to build social support. This could be accomplished through team-based activities or face-to-face events.

For instance, some universities offer Three Minute Thesis , a research communication competition where students present their work in under 180 seconds.

Some universities organise Shut Up and Write sessions, which turns writing into a social experience and limits distractions. These activities can be complemented by encouraging students to become involved in supportive online communities and blogging .

Read more: The rise of writing events gives PhD students the support often lacking in universities

Finally, universities should be dedicated to helping academics develop as supervisors through ongoing training and coaching. Departments could consider tracking the progression of students and ensuring supervisors have the time and skills to take on new students.

Completing a dissertation can be richly rewarding, but it’s the endpoint of a process that’s often long, frustrating and uncertain. Helping students achieve their research aspirations makes academic life a better experience for all involved.

• Postgraduate degrees
• PhD supervisors
• PhD students

Senior Research Development Coordinator

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="phd success rate"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Doctoral program statistics.

Use this page to explore summary statistics for research doctoral programs administered by the Graduate School. While the most common doctoral degree is the Ph.D., the D.M.A. in Music and the J.S.D. in Law are also included here. Methodology and definitions are provided at the bottom of the page.   

For additional graduate statistics, survey results, and career outcomes data, see program metrics .

Methodology and Definitions

Admissions counts.

Applied, admitted and matriculated counts are reported for new, external applications only. Current students who transfer into a different graduate program at Cornell without submitting a new application are not counted here.

Individuals may defer enrollment and/or be admitted to a program that differs from the one to which they originally applied. This can cause admitted and matriculated counts to be higher than application counts in some fields. 

Admission cycles start in the summer and continue through the following spring. For example, the 2020-21 admissions year includes data from summer 2020 through spring 2021. Because these dashboards are updated annually in the fall, the most recent year will not include data from the spring.

Average Admit Rate

Admit rate is the percentage of applicants who were admitted. Highly selective programs tend to have low admit rates. The five year average provides a good indicator of typical admit rates.

Enrollment numbers are derived from the student enrollment snapshot that is captured the sixth week of each fall term. Only students who are enrolled on the census date are counted. Students on an approved leave of absence are not included.

Average Completion Rate

Completion rate is the percentage of entering doctoral students who successfully completed the degree. Completion rates are reported by entering cohort, which is defined by the first term in which a student is enrolled in their doctoral program, regardless of any prior enrollment in a master’s program. The cohorts included here entered their programs seven to twelve years ago, and thus have had adequate time to finish a doctoral degree.

Status of Students in Each Recent Entering Cohort

This graph shows the current status of students who began the doctoral program in each of the last ten academic years. Students listed as completed have received the doctoral degree. Students are considered current in their program if they are still actively pursuing the doctoral degree or are on an approved temporary leave of absence. Students listed as discontinued have either left the university without a degree or switched to a different type of degree program (in many cases a master’s degree).

Time to Degree (TTD)

Time-to-degree degree measures the time in years from the first day of a student’s initial enrollment in their doctoral program to the day of their degree conferral. Time-to-degree measures elapsed time only, not enrolled time. It does not stop and start if a student takes a leave of absence. For Master’s/PhD students, time-to-degree starts when they begin the PhD phase of their studies. If a student was enrolled in a master’s program prior to matriculating in the doctoral program, the separate time in the master’s program is not included. Because of this, time-to-degree may appear shorter in some doctoral programs where it is common to complete a master’s prior to matriculation in the doctoral program.

The median time to degree can be thought of as the “mid-point”, where half of the students completed in a time period that is less than or equal to this value. The median is not affected by extreme values or outliers. 

• PhD Failure Rate – A Study of 26,076 PhD Candidates
• Doing a PhD

The PhD failure rate in the UK is 19.5%, with 16.2% of students leaving their PhD programme early, and 3.3% of students failing their viva. 80.5% of all students who enrol onto a PhD programme successfully complete it and are awarded a doctorate.

Introduction

One of the biggest concerns for doctoral students is the ongoing fear of failing their PhD.

After all those years of research, the long days in the lab and the endless nights in the library, it’s no surprise to find many agonising over the possibility of it all being for nothing. While this fear will always exist, it would help you to know how likely failure is, and what you can do to increase your chances of success.

Read on to learn how PhDs can be failed, what the true failure rates are based on an analysis of 26,067 PhD candidates from 14 UK universities, and what your options are if you’re unsuccessful in obtaining your PhD.

Ways You Can Fail A PhD

There are essentially two ways in which you can fail a PhD; non-completion or failing your viva (also known as your thesis defence ).

Non-completion

Non-completion is when a student leaves their PhD programme before having sat their viva examination. Since vivas take place at the end of the PhD journey, typically between the 3rd and 4th year for most full-time programmes, most failed PhDs fall within the ‘non-completion’ category because of the long duration it covers.

There are many reasons why a student may decide to leave a programme early, though these can usually be grouped into two categories:

• Motives – The individual may no longer believe undertaking a PhD is for them. This might be because it isn’t what they had imagined, or they’ve decided on an alternative path.
• Extenuating circumstances – The student may face unforeseen problems beyond their control, such as poor health, bereavement or family difficulties, preventing them from completing their research.

In both cases, a good supervisor will always try their best to help the student continue with their studies. In the former case, this may mean considering alternative research questions or, in the latter case, encouraging you to seek academic support from the university through one of their student care policies.

Besides the student deciding to end their programme early, the university can also make this decision. On these occasions, the student’s supervisor may not believe they’ve made enough progress for the time they’ve been on the project. If the problem can’t be corrected, the supervisor may ask the university to remove the student from the programme.

Failing The Viva

Assuming you make it to the end of your programme, there are still two ways you can be unsuccessful.

The first is an unsatisfactory thesis. For whatever reason, your thesis may be deemed not good enough, lacking originality, reliable data, conclusive findings, or be of poor overall quality. In such cases, your examiners may request an extensive rework of your thesis before agreeing to perform your viva examination. Although this will rarely be the case, it is possible that you may exceed the permissible length of programme registration and if you don’t have valid grounds for an extension, you may not have enough time to be able to sit your viva.

The more common scenario, while still being uncommon itself, is that you sit and fail your viva examination. The examiners may decide that your research project is severely flawed, to the point where it can’t possibly be remedied even with major revisions. This could happen for reasons such as basing your study on an incorrect fundamental assumption; this should not happen however if there is a proper supervisory support system in place.

PhD Failure Rate – UK & EU Statistics

According to 2010-11 data published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (now replaced by UK Research and Innovation ), 72.9% of students enrolled in a PhD programme in the UK or EU complete their degree within seven years. Following this, 80.5% of PhD students complete their degree within 25 years.

This means that four out of every five students who register onto a PhD programme successfully complete their doctorate.

While a failure rate of one in five students may seem a little high, most of these are those who exit their programme early as opposed to those who fail at the viva stage.

Failing Doesn’t Happen Often

Although a PhD is an independent project, you will be appointed a supervisor to support you. Each university will have its own system for how your supervisor is to support you , but regardless of this, they will all require regular communication between the two of you. This could be in the form of annual reviews, quarterly interim reviews or regular meetings. The majority of students also have a secondary academic supervisor (and in some cases a thesis committee of supervisors); the role of these can vary from having a hands-on role in regular supervision, to being another useful person to bounce ideas off of.

These frequent check-ins are designed to help you stay on track with your project. For example, if any issues are identified, you and your supervisor can discuss how to rectify them in order to refocus your research. This reduces the likelihood of a problem going undetected for several years, only for it to be unearthed after it’s too late to address.

In addition, the thesis you submit to your examiners will likely be your third or fourth iteration, with your supervisor having critiqued each earlier version. As a result, your thesis will typically only be submitted to the examiners after your supervisor approves it; many UK universities require a formal, signed document to be submitted by the primary academic supervisor at the same time as the student submits the thesis, confirming that he or she has approved the submission.

Failed Viva – Outcomes of 26,076 Students

Despite what you may have heard, the failing PhD rate amongst students who sit their viva is low.

This, combined with ongoing guidance from your supervisor, is because vivas don’t have a strict pass/fail outcome. You can find a detailed breakdown of all viva outcomes in our viva guide, but to summarise – the most common outcome will be for you to revise your thesis in accordance with the comments from your examiners and resubmit it.

This means that as long as the review of your thesis and your viva examination uncovers no significant issues, you’re almost certain to be awarded a provisional pass on the basis you make the necessary corrections to your thesis.

To give you an indication of the viva failure rate, we’ve analysed the outcomes of 26,076 PhD candidates from 14 UK universities who sat a viva between 2006 and 2017.

The analysis shows that of the 26,076 students who sat their viva, 25,063 succeeded; this is just over 96% of the total students as shown in the chart below.

Students Who Passed

The analysis shows that of the 96% of students who passed, approximately 5% required no amendments, 79% required minor amendments and the remaining 16% required major revisions. This supports our earlier discussion on how the most common outcome of a viva is a ‘pass with minor amendments’.

Students Who Failed

Of the 4% of unsuccessful students, approximately 97% were awarded an MPhil (Master of Philosophy), and 3% weren’t awarded a degree.

Note : It should be noted that while the data provides the student’s overall outcome, i.e. whether they passed or failed, they didn’t all provide the students specific outcome, i.e. whether they had to make amendments, or with a failure, whether they were awarded an MPhil. Therefore, while the breakdowns represent the current known data, the exact breakdown may differ.

Summary of Findings

By using our data in combination with the earlier statistic provided by HEFCE, we can gain an overall picture of the PhD journey as summarised in the image below.

To summarise, based on the analysis of 26,076 PhD candidates at 14 universities between 2006 and 2017, the PhD pass rate in the UK is 80.5%. Of the 19.5% of students who fail, 3.3% is attributed to students failing their viva and the remaining 16.2% is attributed to students leaving their programme early.

The above statistics indicate that while 1 in every 5 students fail their PhD, the failure rate for the viva process itself is low. Specifically, only 4% of all students who sit their viva fail; in other words, 96% of the students pass it.

What Are Your Options After an Unsuccessful PhD?

Appeal your outcome.

If you believe you had a valid case, you can try to appeal against your outcome . The appeal process will be different for each university, so ensure you consult the guidelines published by your university before taking any action.

While making an appeal may be an option, it should only be considered if you genuinely believe you have a legitimate case. Most examiners have a lot of experience in assessing PhD candidates and follow strict guidelines when making their decisions. Therefore, your claim for appeal will need to be strong if it is to stand up in front of committee members in the adjudication process.

Downgrade to MPhil

If you are unsuccessful in being awarded a PhD, an MPhil may be awarded instead. For this to happen, your work would need to be considered worthy of an MPhil, as although it is a Master’s degree, it is still an advanced postgraduate research degree.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of stigma around MPhil degrees, with many worrying that it will be seen as a sign of a failed PhD. While not as advanced as a PhD, an MPhil is still an advanced research degree, and being awarded one shows that you’ve successfully carried out an independent research project which is an undertaking to be admired.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

Additional Resources

Hopefully now knowing the overall picture your mind will feel slightly more at ease. Regardless, there are several good practices you can adopt to ensure you’re always in the best possible position. The key of these includes developing a good working relationship with your supervisor, working to a project schedule, having your thesis checked by several other academics aside from your supervisor, and thoroughly preparing for your viva examination.

We’ve developed a number of resources which should help you in the above:

• What to Expect from Your Supervisor – Find out what to look for in a Supervisor, how they will typically support you, and how often you should meet with them.
• How to Write a Research Proposal – Find an outline of how you can go about putting a project plan together.
• What is a PhD Viva? – Learn exactly what a viva is, their purpose and what you can expect on the day. We’ve also provided a full breakdown of all the possible outcomes of a viva and tips to help you prepare for your own.

Data for Statistics

• Cardiff University – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• Imperial College London – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• London School of Economics (LSE) – 2006/07 to 2015/16
• Queen Mary University of London – 2009/10 to 2015/16
• University College London (UCL) – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Aberdeen – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Birmingham – 2006/07 to 2015/16
• University of Bristol – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Edinburgh – 2006/07 to 2016/17
• University of Nottingham – 2006/07 to 2015/16
• University of Oxford – 2007/08 to 2016/17
• University of York – 2009/10 to 2016/17
• University of Manchester – 2008/09 to 2017/18
• University of Sheffield – 2006/07 to 2016/17

Note : The data used for this analysis was obtained from the above universities under the Freedom of Information Act. As per the Act, the information was provided in such a way that no specific individual can be identified from the data.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

01 Sep Graduate Student Graduation and Completion Rates – Long Overdue

We don’t have graduate student graduation and completion metrics

Why you ask? Great question! The data simply are not collected at a national level. And to be fair – states, higher education organizations, and some institutions know A LOT of information about their graduate students. They track them, run analyses on them — all with the aim of increasing graduate student completion, improving the graduate student experience, and becoming more efficient and effective.

But what about IPEDS?

They collect a ton of information. Indeed – IPEDS is my go-to resource for a lot of benchmarking (and I’m not just saying that because I’ve been an IPEDS Educator for over 10 years). IPEDS is THE most comprehensive national higher education data system in the world. (Yep – lots of institutions in other countries ask to participate – voluntarily.)

IPEDS has 13 integrated (that’s what the I stands for in IPEDS) surveys. [Survey sounds voluntary – so I call them reports because they are required if one wants access to Title IV funding and some other federal benefits.] Of the 13 IPEDS reports (list below), only one of the reports collects information about graduate student completion – the Completions survey. There are three IPEDS surveys that focus on undergraduate graduation rates (Graduation Rates, Graduation Rates 200 and Outcome Measures). Yet, none include graduate student graduation rates.

IPEDS Completions Survey

The IPEDS Completions survey collects data on the number of students that complete a degree in a 12-month period. Luckily – at the graduate level, the data are disaggregated by:

• Master’s degree
• Research/scholarship
• Professional practice
• Postbaccalaureate
• Post master’s

Additionally, the data are also disaggregated by:

• Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code
• Race/Ethnicity

(Of course, undergraduate completions are also collected, but since that’s not our focus in this article, we are just listing out the graduate information. You can find more details about the entire IPEDS completions survey in the IPEDS instructions .)

Here is a sample of what the collection screen looks like. This may give you a better of idea of the data collected. Note the column headers (CIP Code, Award Level, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity). IPEDS also collects information whether or not the program is a distance education program (bonus!)

Are there other Graduate Student Graduation and Completion Rates options?

NCES Sample Surveys

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducts a series of surveys by gathering information from a sample of students (aka ‘sample-surveys’). These surveys are sophisticated – ensuring a representative sample of students in the country . Because students are the focus of the surveys (not institutions), a small percentage of institutions are part of the collection. Again – the focus is on the students.

The collection of information is quite thorough:

• Data from the colleges and universities the student attended
• Data from financial aid records (if available)
• Phone or email questionnaire to the students

The downside to the thoroughness is that these surveys cannot be conducted on an annual basis. And – because most of them are longitudinal surveys, tracking students over upwards of a decade, the data take quite a while to collect. Some argue that information about a cohort of students that is six or 10 years old isn’t relevant to today’s decision makers.

Below is a list of NCES Sample Surveys that are focused on postsecondary education (aka – higher education). Of the five sample surveys, one (Baccalaureate and Beyond) had a graduate student focus with a 1993 cohort of bachelor’s students. The study tracked these students through 2003 – 19 years ago. And a few things have changed since then.

Just in case you want to know a bit about the findings on graduate students from that survey, Nevill and Chen (2007) wrote an article using the data. They found that: “Rates of persistence and completion were higher among students who entered graduate school immediately after earning a bachelor’s degree, who attended full time and enrolled continuously, and who enrolled in multiple graduate degree programs.”

But – unfortunately, the data are not structured in a way to tell us about specific institutions. So – good to have some information, but usability for decision-making diminishes when applied to an individual institution.

It is worth mentioning the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), Graduate Survey – because that sure looks graduate focused – and it is. However, it isn’t focused on graduate student graduation and completion rates. Rather – you guessed it – the NPSAS survey focused on student aid. Below is a screenshot of the data categories (left hand side) that are available for the NPSAS, Graduate survey. Sadly, there are no graduate student graduation and completion rates information. [Sidenote – You too can explore any of the sample survey data in NCES’ awesome Datalab via Powerstats. I sooo wish this existed back in my dissertation days . Instead, I had to wait to gain access to the restricted components of the Beginning Postsecondary Study data, which elongated my dissertation time.]

Individual Institution Websites

However, absent a common standard, this means that institutions report in different ways, use different definitions, disaggregate differently, etc. In short, it is hard to compare graduate student graduation and completion rates from one institution to another. And – let’s assume that all institutions use IPEDS definitions for calculating undergraduate outcomes and simply apply them to graduate student cohorts – and then post the information on their websites.

One will need to painstakingly scour each institution’s website for the information – because each will house it in a different spot on their website. Then after finding it, a researcher/interested person would need to extract the information from the website or PDF and put it into a spreadsheet (or something that lends itself for analysis). The likelihood of someone doing this for over 2,000 graduate colleges and universities is 0 percent. [Yep – there are nearly over 2,000 colleges and universities that offer one or more graduate programs – so this impacts A LOT of institutions.]

This brings us full circle to our third and final option – and the teaser in the first line of this article.

National Student Clearinghouse (NSC)

The NSC is one of THE most well respected organizations when it comes to student level data. And why shouldn’t they be? They have been perfecting their work for nearly 30 years (started in 1993). The overwhelming majority of institutions report enrollment data to NSC because their system “talks to” the federal government’s financial aid reporting system (National Student Loan Data System – NSLDS). Once an institution provides their data for NSLDS to NSC, they get access to a lot of other NSC services. This data maven’s FAVORITE is StudentTracker . “StudentTracker® is the only nationwide source of college enrollment and degree data. Nearly 3,600 colleges and universities — enrolling over 99 percent of all students in public and private U.S. institutions — regularly provide enrollment and graduation data to the Clearinghouse.”

That’s just what we needed – right?

Yes – the institution collects graduate student outcomes data. But, the dataset is protected information because it is at the student level. (NSC takes the protection of student information VERY seriously).

So – the good news is, the data exist. In fact, the NSC has looked as some graduate student data in 2017. Further suggesting, NSC data can answer some very important questions about graduate student graduation and completion rates (more on that in a few paragraphs).

The bad news is that institutions can only query the NSC StudentTracker databases for their own students (and since the institution provided the data on completion – there is no point in asking NSC StudentTracker who graduated at one’s institution when your institutional research office has that info and reports it to IPEDS). This means that individual institutions can’t benchmark to other institutions without entering into a data/information sharing agreement with other institutions (a very long process).

Back to the good news — the data exist and institutions have been reporting these data to NSC for decades. Even better news – NO, zero, zip, zilch, nada – colleges and universities need additional reporting to answer important questions about graduate student success. Which has significant implications on ALL of higher education and our communities.

What questions can we answer with these data?

I’m glad you asked. I’m a classically trained researcher with a practical-based approach. So, while I do my due diligence in the research and statistics space, it also has to make practical sense too. That’s the lens that I use when attempting to answer the BIG question…

So what? So what if we know graduate student graduation and completion rates? What practical value does this add?

Here are just a few potential questions that we could answer with the data. Note – all of these can – and should – be sliced and diced by institutional type, size, student characteristics, etc. I come at this question from three different perspectives, based on my own academic and professional background.

From a policy perspective (My doctorate is in higher education policy – so this is the short list).

• To what degree do different financial aid programs contribute toward increasing graduate student success?
• Under what institutional conditions do minority graduate students increase their likelihood for completion?
• How do we leverage findings from increasing minority graduate student completion to have an impact on the number of minority faculty teaching at the undergraduate level? This might bolster undergraduate minority completion rates.

From a data perspective (I’ve been in the field of institutional research and have served as the head of IR offices for over 20 years).

• What is the time to degree by award level (e.g., master’s, doctoral research/scholarship vs doctoral professional practice)? And how does that compare across our peer and aspirational institutions?
• What are the trends of graduate graduation rates by peer and aspirational groups?

From an accreditation perspective (I’ve served as an accreditation liaison at multiple institutions, served on institutional accreditation teams, and been an accreditation reviewer.

• From which institutions can we glean graduate student graduation rate best practices? Sharing those practices with other institutions may help them improve their student successes.
• How can and should team reviewers evaluate graduate student graduation and completion rates such that it informs accrediting recommendations and actions?

Wrapping it up

I hope you are deeply encouraged by the fact that graduate student graduation and completion rate data exist – and are just waiting for us to discover it. In the meantime, while we all wait for national efforts to get underway, individual institutions can take action now by analyzing their existing data – and calculating graduate student retention and graduation rates — as well as thinking about better ways to measure student success.

• © 2023

Unlocking PhD Success

How to Acquire Crucial PhD Skills

• Eelko K.R.E. Huizingh 0

University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Identifies the crucial Ph.D. skills

Discusses the related competences for each skill

Details how to acquire each competence as part of a personal growth process

995 Accesses

4 Altmetric

• Table of contents

About this book

Authors and affiliations, about the author, bibliographic information.

• Publish with us

Buying options

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check for access.

Table of contents (8 chapters)

Front matter, introduction academic talent development.

• Eelko K. R. E. Huizingh

Research Skills

Collaboration skills, writing skills, presentation skills, time management skills, persistence skills, making it work, back matter.

Are you a current or aspiring Ph.D. student determined to overcome the challenges that lie ahead? Do not let statistics discourage you, because this comprehensive guide is here to help you defy the odds and reach the pinnacle of academic achievement. With failure rates hovering between 40% and 50%, it is crucial to equip yourself with the right skills to ensure your success.

In this book, you will embark on a transformative journey toward becoming a confident and accomplished scholar. This book takes a meticulous approach, addressing the six essential skills every Ph.D. student must possess: research, writing, presentation, time management, persistence, and collaboration. Each chapter delves into the significance of these skills within the Ph.D. process, explores the necessary competences, and provides practical strategies for their acquisition.

Armed with numerous tips, tricks, and actionable advice, this invaluable resource empowers you to optimize your performance throughout your Ph.D. journey. Within these pages, you will discover how to assess your current skill set, identify areas for improvement, and develop a personalized academic development plan. With the aid of many informative figures and tables, you will find quick and easy access to expert guidance.

Do not let uncertainty and self-doubt hinder your progress. “Unlocking PhD Success” is your roadmap to triumph, supporting you every step of the way as you conquer the challenges of doctoral studies. Embrace this book as your trusted companion, and unlock your full potential as an exceptional Ph.D. candidate.

• PhD project
• PhD students
• Academic skills
• Skills development
• Academic development plan
• Personal growth process
• Personal academic development plan
• Managing Graduate School
• Graduate Student Guide
• Guide for PhD Students
• Planning a PhD Thesis
• Academic Talent Development
• Presentation skills
• Time management
• Organizing PhD Work

Eelko K.R.E. Huizingh

Eelko Huizingh is an experienced academic researcher and a trainer. His track record includes over 500 publications, with some articles cited 1,000-2,000+ times. He runs the EDEN seminar  How to design your PhD  (10+ years) and has given 200+ events worldwide on academic publishing and academic talent development. As the scientific affairs director of ISPIM, he regularly participates in Junior Researcher Labs.

Book Title : Unlocking PhD Success

Book Subtitle : How to Acquire Crucial PhD Skills

Authors : Eelko K.R.E. Huizingh

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40651-5

Publisher : Springer Cham

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance , Economics and Finance (R0)

Copyright Information : The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-031-40650-8 Published: 19 November 2023

eBook ISBN : 978-3-031-40651-5 Published: 18 November 2023

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XI, 181

Number of Illustrations : 3 b/w illustrations, 70 illustrations in colour

Topics : Economics, general , Political Science and International Relations, general , Business and Management, general

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Search form

Office of the provost, you are here, phd program data.

• Outcomes data is based on students who completed a PhD between academic years 2010-11 to 2014-15
• Student enrollments in and degrees conferred by the joint MD/PHD programs with the Pritzker School of Medicine are not included in these reports.
• Data in these charts follow U.S. reporting requirements, which currently allow only “male” and “female” as gender categories.
• International is defined by IPEDS as nonresident alien. View IPEDS'  Definitions for New Race and Ethnicity Categories .

Related Issues and Initiatives

• Graduate Education
• Graduate Education Working Groups and Committees

Beth Niestat

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Do successful PhD outcomes reflect the research environment rather than academic ability?

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

Affiliation Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Faculty of Health, Office of Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

• Daniel L. Belavy, 
• Patrick J. Owen, 
• Patricia M. Livingston

• Published: August 5, 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Maximising research productivity is a major focus for universities world-wide. Graduate research programs are an important driver of research outputs. Choosing students with the greatest likelihood of success is considered a key part of improving research outcomes. There has been little empirical investigation of what factors drive the outcomes from a student's PhD and whether ranking procedures are effective in student selection. Here we show that, the research environment had a decisive influence: students who conducted research in one of the University's priority research areas and who had experienced, research-intensive, supervisors had significantly better outcomes from their PhD in terms of number of manuscripts published, citations, average impact factor of journals published in, and reduced attrition rates. In contrast, students’ previous academic outcomes and research training was unrelated to outcomes. Furthermore, students who received a scholarship to support their studies generated significantly more publications in higher impact journals, their work was cited more often and they were less likely to withdraw from their PhD. The findings suggest that experienced supervisors researching in a priority research area facilitate PhD student productivity. The findings question the utility of assigning PhD scholarships solely on the basis of student academic merit, once minimum entry requirements are met. Given that citations, publication numbers and publications in higher ranked journals drive university rankings, and that publications from PhD student contribute approximately one-third of all research outputs from universities, strengthening research infrastructure and supervision teams may be more important considerations for maximising the contribution of PhD students to a university’s international standing.

Citation: Belavy DL, Owen PJ, Livingston PM (2020) Do successful PhD outcomes reflect the research environment rather than academic ability? PLoS ONE 15(8): e0236327. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327

Editor: Sergi Lozano, Universitat de Barcelona, SPAIN

Received: October 3, 2019; Accepted: July 3, 2020; Published: August 5, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Belavy et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Participants did not give consent for their data to be published in online databanks and data are accessible with appropriate ethical approvals. Interested parties may contact the authors and/or the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee [email protected] to gain access to the data.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

A research doctorate degree comprises a process of independent research that produces an original contribution to knowledge [ 1 ]. The Australian Commonwealth Government supports [ 2 ] both domestic and overseas students undertaking research doctorate degrees, known as PhDs. These scholarships, which comprise a stipend for three years, are competitive. For this reason, when students apply for scholarships for their PhD studies, prior academic performance and research training play a key role in deciding whether the applicant receives a scholarship. However, is assigning scholarships predominately on the basis of academic grades and previous research experience effective in determining who will succeed?

A university’s international and national ranking is important for its reputation and marketing to prospective students [ 3 ]. Citation rates, number of publications and impact factor of journals faculty publish in, influence the ranking of a university. The Quacquarelli Symonds University Rank [ 4 ] is weighted 30% by the number of citations per faculty member, the Times Higher Education World Ranking [ 5 ] 30% by the number of citations and 6% by the number of publications per academic, and the Academic Ranking of World Universities [ 6 ] 20% by number of highly cited researchers, 20% by number of papers published in Nature or Science and 20% by the number of publications in total.

PhD students are important drivers of research outputs from universities, with one analysis [ 7 ] showing that one-third of research publications was from doctoral students. It is important to consider to what extent the procedures by which universities select students who go on to produce higher numbers of highly cited publications in high impact journals. We are not aware of any prior research that has examined this topic.

Waldinger [ 8 ] showed that the quality of academic staff (in departments of mathematics at German universities in the 1930s) influenced the likelihood of whether a doctoral student would become a full professor later in their career. Waldinger also showed that the amount of citations the scientific work of a doctoral student received through their entire subsequent scientific career was influenced by the status of their supervisor. Other factors, such as, the reputation of a department [ 9 ], the reputation the group leader [ 10 ], and access to resources and equipment [ 11 ], the number of full-professors on staff [ 12 ] influenced the research output of the academics involved in that group. Less information is available on the impact of student academic ability or prior research training on PhD outcomes: one analysis found that the reputation of a given department was more important for employment outcomes post-PhD than the accomplishments of the student during their studies [ 13 ]. Overall, the evidence available implies that the research environment may have an inordinate impact on the PhD student outcomes (e.g. citations, number of publications, impact factor of journals of those publications).

Here we examine the relationship between information known about applicants and their proposed supervisory teams at the time of scholarship application with the subsequent research outputs, as measured by number of citations, number of publications and the impact of journals of those publications.

Materials and methods

Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee reviewed this project (2019–191) and found it to be compliant with the Ethical Considerations in Quality Assurance and Evaluation Activities guidelines of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and determined that no further ethics review was required. Consent was not obtained and the data analysed anonymously.

Over a four year period, 2010–2013, 324 PhD scholarship applications were submitted to the Faculty of Health at one university in Australia ( Fig 1 ). In these applications, data were collated on:

• the grade the student achieved for their prior research training degree and their rank in this degree (top, middle, bottom third of first class honours or second class honours; or their equivalency to this),
• the grade point average achieved in their undergraduate degree (ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 = high distinction grade point average plus prizes awarded, 4 = high distinction grade point average, 3 = distinction, 2 = credit, 1 = pass).
• whether the applicant had published in a scientific journal (‘yes’ or ‘no’)
• research environment: whether the primary supervisor was located in a strategic research centre or institute within the university (‘yes’ or ‘no’).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

In 2010 to 2013, applications were submitted for PhD scholarships and in July 2018 data on publication outputs and completion of degree were obtained. Overall, 11 students did not enrol in PhD despite an offer with scholarship being made and 37 withdrew from their studies after starting.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.g001

At the time of ranking for scholarships, the review panel scored each application on the basis of their academic merit and the research experience, alignment of the proposed research with the strategic research goals of the Faculty and university, and the experience of the supervisory team (as expressed by prior PhD completions, student progress, external grants, previous student publications, supervisor track record). In July 2018, these scores were reviewed by two independent assessors experienced in the scholarship ranking process and consensus was attained. Subsequent to this, following variables were generated:

• quartile of the academic merit scores in which each student was located.
• strategic alignment score achieved maximum points (‘yes’ or ‘no’). The presence or absence of a maximum score was taken for this variable as there were few instances of low scores on this criterion and data were skewed to the maximum score.
• supervisor team scores achieved maximum points (‘yes’ or ‘no’). The presence or absence of maximum score was taken for this variable as there were few instances of low scores on this criterion and data were skewed to the maximum score.
• level of academic appointment of the primary supervisor (lecturer/senior lecturer, associate professor, or full professor)

Data on whether the applicant subsequently enrolled (if ‘no’ they were excluded from further analysis; Fig 1 ), whether they completed their studies (‘yes’ or ‘no’), and whether the student received a scholarship to support his/her study (‘yes’ or ‘no’) obtained from another university database.

The university tracks publication outputs of its faculty and students. In July 2018, these data were obtained to link the number of publications by the student with their primary supervisor, the impact factor of the journals in which these publications appeared, and the number of citations received by the publications in Web of Science by the cut-off data of data access. Publications were matched on the basis of student name and primary supervisor name. If a change of primary supervisor occurred during student candidature, publication matches with the new primary supervisor were included as well. If the student had enrolled in a PhD but achieved no publications within the time-period examined, data were coded as zero publications, zero citations and zero average impact factor. Datasets were merged in using custom written code implemented in the 'R' statistical environment (version 3.4.0 https://www.r-project.org/ ). Where repeat applications were submitted in subsequent years by the same person, only the data available at the first application was used in further analysis. Prior to statistical analysis, all identifying information was removed.

Statistical analyses

All analyses were conducted using Stata statistical software version 15 (College Station TX, USA). Univariate associations between continuous dependent variables (number of publications, number of citations, number of citations per publication, average publication impact factor) and explanatory variables were assessed by the Kruskal-Wallis H test or Mann-Whitney U test (both non-parametric tests), as well as one-way analysis of variance and t-tests (both parametric tests). Univariate associations between withdrawal (yes/no) and independent variables were assessed by penalized maximum likelihood [ 14 , 15 ] logistic regression. We categorised the explanatory variables as follows: student specific factors (student research degree rank, student undergraduate rank, student prior publication, student academic merit), supervisor specific factors (supervisor located in a strategic research centre, supervisor academic level, supervisor team scores achieved maximum points), research topic related factors (strategic alignment score achieved maximum points), and whether a scholarship was awarded. To investigate which variables were more important than others for PhD student outcome metrics, factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) as well as stepwise multiple linear regression models with both forward and backward selection were used to assess the association between the dependent variables and the independent variables. We further conducted factorial ANOVA to assess the association between the dependent variables and independent variables. Stepwise penalized maximum likelihood logistic regression models were used to predict withdrawal from PhD (yes/no) based on independent variables. An adjusted alpha level of 0.10 to enter and 0.20 to remove were used for all step-wise regression models. An alpha-level of 0.05 was adopted for all other statistical tests, including the assessment of the final step-wise regression models.

Primary analyses involved 198 students who enrolled in PhD (61% of 324 applications; Fig 1 ). The descriptive data on the characteristics of the students are shown in Table 1 . In the whole cohort, median (25 th percentile, 75 th percentile) and mean (standard deviation; SD) number of publications were 1.0 (0.0, 3.0) and 2.8 (4.4), impact factor 0.86 (0.00, 2.61) and 1.59 (2.36), citations per publication 0.0 (0.0, 4.5) and 3.5 (7.4) and total citations 0.0 (0.0, 17.0) and 19.6 (49.8). S1 Table presents the stability of the explanatory variables across each year of student applications. The relationship between ranking criteria and PhD student output metrics are shown in Table 2 (non-parametric analyses) and Table 3 (parametric analyses). Findings of both non-parametric and parametric analyses were similar. Non-parametric ( S1 Table ) and parametric ( S2 Table ) effect sizes as well as variability among variables by year of application ( S3 Table ) are reported in the data supplement.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t003

Number of publications

On univariate analysis (Tables 2 and 3 , Fig 2 ), primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (non-parametric and parametric both: P≤0.014), supervisory teams who received a maximum score (both: P≤0.014), being awarded a scholarship (both: P<0.001), student academic merit score (non-parametric: P = 0.017, parametric: P = 0.758) were associated with this outcome, but student undergraduate performance (both: P≥0.588), student research training degree outcome (e.g. first-class honours upper band; both: P≥0.262), research topic (both: P≥0.347), primary supervisor academic level (both: P≥0.107) were not.

Data are non-parametric effect sizes (95% confidence interval) for each parameter. See S1 Table for more detail and Tables 2 and 3 for more detail on each parameter. Student academic merit score from scholarship panel ranking showed moderate effect sizes, yet these students received 46% of all scholarships and multivariate analyses showed that receiving a scholarship was more important than the student's academic merit (see Results for more detail). Other markers of student ability and prior research training were unrelated to outcomes from the PhD. The score assigned by the panel to the alignment of the research topic with research priorities was unrelated to outcomes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.g002

Step-wise regression models ( Table 4 ) showed that receiving a scholarship (P = 0.001), primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (P = 0.018) remained in final model for number of publications, and whilst 'research topic' remained in the final model, it was not significant (P = 0.076). Factorial ANOVA ( S4 Table ) yielded similar results (having a scholarship, supervisory teams who received a maximum score, primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre were associated, but not student related variables).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t004

Number of citations

On univariate analysis (Tables 2 and 3 , Fig 2 ), primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (non-parametric and parametric P both≤0.010), supervisory teams who received a maximum score (both: P≤0.012), being awarded a scholarship (both: P<0.001) were associated with this outcome, but student undergraduate performance (both: P≥0.668), student research training degree outcome (e.g. first-class honours upper band; both: P≥0.237), student academic merit score (both: P≥0.080), research topic (both: P≥0.202), primary supervisor academic level (both: P≥0.482) were not.

Step-wise regression models ( Table 4 ) showed that supervisory team who received a maximum score (P = 0.039) and the receiving a scholarship (P = 0.053), but in this case the scholarship award was not significant. Factorial ANOVA ( S4 Table ) yielded similar results (having a scholarship and supervisory teams who received a maximum score were associated, but not student related variables).

Citations per publications

On univariate analysis (Tables 2 and 3 , Fig 2 ), primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (non-parametric and parametric P both P≤0.009), supervisory teams who received a maximum score (non-parametric: P<0.001, parametric: P = 0.159), being awarded a scholarship (both: P≤0.048) were associated with this outcome, but student undergraduate performance (both: P≥0.640), student research training degree outcome (e.g. first-class honours upper band; both: P≥0.668), student academic merit score (both: P≥0.082), research topic (both: P≥0.185), primary supervisor academic level (both: P≥0.160) were not.

Step-wise regression models ( Table 4 ) showed that primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (P = 0.079) and supervisory team achieving maximum score (P = 0.087) remained in the final model, but neither terms were significant. Factorial ANOVA ( S4 Table ) yielded similar results (having a scholarship and supervisory teams who received a maximum score approached, but did not reach, significance).

Average impact factor

On univariate analysis (Tables 2 and 3 , Fig 2 ), primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (non-parametric and parametric P both P≤0.001), supervisory teams who received a maximum score (both: P≤0.005), being awarded a scholarship (both: P<0.001), student academic merit score (both: P≤0.005), were associated with this outcome, but student undergraduate performance (both: P≥0.077), student research training degree outcome (e.g. first-class honours upper band; both: P≥0.238), research topic (both: P≥0.161), primary supervisor academic level (both: P≥0.125) were not.

Step-wise regression models ( Table 4 ) showed that receiving a scholarship (P<0.001) and primary supervisor being located in a strategic research centre (P = 0.051) remained in the final model, with the latter not achieving statistical significance. Factorial ANOVA ( S4 Table ) yielded similar results (having a scholarship was significant, but supervisor related variables approached, but did not reach, significance; student related variables were not significant).

Drop-out from PhD

Odds ratios for student attrition is shown in Table 1 . Students were more than two times more likely to withdraw from their PhD when the supervisory team did not achieve maximum score (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.88[1.39, 5.93], P = 0.004) or a scholarship was not awarded (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 3.04[1.37, 6.73], P = 0.006). No other independent variables significantly predicted the likelihood of withdrawal.

The final multiple logistic regression model (χ 2 = 13.80, df = 3, P = 0.003) for predicting withdrawal from PhD included maximum supervisory team score (OR = 3.29, P = 0.013; i.e. lower risk of withdrawal when the supervisor score was maximum), student undergraduate degree grades (OR = 0.58, P = 0.047; i.e. reduced risk for each GPA rank lower) and receiving a scholarship (OR = 2.30, P = 0.090; i.e. lower risk when scholarship received), albeit the latter was not significant.

Associations between explanatory variables

Students in the highest quartile of academic merit received the most (42%) of all scholarships awarded. Of those in the highest quartile of academic merit, 79% received scholarships, compared to 62% in the second quartile, 20% in the third quartile and 22% in the lowest quartile.

Students who received a scholarship were more often supervised by strong supervisory teams (χ 2 = 9.346, P = 0.002; Table 5 ) and by supervisors who were located in a strategic research centre (χ 2 = 8.225, P = 0.004; Table 5 ). Supervisors who were in a strategic research centre were more likely to attract students in the highest quartile of academic merit (χ 2 = 3.899, P = 0.048; Table 6 ). Supervisory teams who received a maximum score were more likely to attract students in the highest quartile of academic merit (χ 2 = 10.147, P = 0.001; Table 6 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t005

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.t006

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first analysis of PhD student outcomes in relation to their research environment, their academic abilities and prior research training. The key finding was that the 'research environment', such as whether the supervisor was in a research centre or institute and the research experience of the supervision team, were most significant predictors of, with the largest effect sizes for, student outcomes. In contrast, the students' previous academic outcomes and previous research training were not predictors. Receiving a PhD scholarship had a significant influence on positive student outcomes and was more important than students being judged as having the highest academic merit. Receiving a scholarship occurred more frequently in students tied to stronger supervisory teams and supervisors in strategic research centres.

Entry to a PhD is typically restricted to those students with a minimum grade in a prior Masters or Honours degree [ 16 ]. At our university, prospective PhD students are required to have completed a research project with a dissertation of at least 25% of one year full-time study at Honours or Masters level and their grade needs to have been at least 70%. Our findings suggest that once students meet the minimum academic ability for entry into PhD, any further ability or research training above that does not influence the outcome of their PhD. This is in line with findings that scientist’s intelligence quotient does not correlate with their citation rates [ 17 ].

By contrast, it is the research environment in which the student is embedded that is decisive for the outcomes of their PhD; including the strength of their supervisory team. This is in line with the hypothesis of “accumulative advantage”, also known as “Matthew effects” in science [ 18 ] where differences between scientists at an early stage of their career become reinforced over time [ 19 ]. The standing of a PhD supervisor directly influences [ 8 ] the future career trajectory, and number of citations, their students receive throughout their career. Also, the standing of a department influences the future employment chances of its PhD graduates, on average, more than the individual achievements of those students [ 13 ]. The impact of teacher quality is seen in other areas of education [ 20 , 21 ], although ‘PhD supervisor quality’ is assessed differently to teacher quality in school and undergraduate education.

There are other factors known to impact the number and impact of publication outputs. Research collaboration has clearly been shown to lead to higher impact publications [ 22 – 25 ]. In the health-sciences field, publications of higher levels of evidence [ 26 ] are more likely to be cited. Similarly interventional (rather than observational) and prospective (rather than retrospective) studies [ 25 , 27 ], as well as randomised controlled trials and basic science papers [ 28 ] are more likely to be cited. Papers published in high impact factor journals will be more often cited simply for that reason [ 23 , 25 ]. We argue these factors are more likely to be determined by the research culture in which the student are embedded, as opposed to being determined by the student alone.

We also showed that receiving a PhD scholarship contributed to the students’ outcomes, in particular with more publications arising, more citations higher impact factor journals. In step-wise regression, we found that impact of the scholarship persisted for the number of publications and average impact factor of the journals in which the students published. This finding is in line with prior work [ 29 ] that showed PhD students receiving scholarships to support their studies published more peer reviewed papers. Similar to prior work [ 29 ], our results showed that receiving a scholarship was also associated with lower withdrawal rates.

Students were awarded scholarships based on their prior academic performance [ 30 ]. At this university, whilst the student’s academic merit contributed to 60% of their total ranking score, in practice this was the most decisive factor in determining which applicants were offered scholarships first. We show here, however, that the most significant attributes for PhD success were research environment and the performance metrics of the supervision team. How these attributes may influence employment opportunities post PhD also warrants further investigation.

Strengthening the research environment is also worthy of further investigation. Prior work [ 12 ] has shown that very few university departments rely solely on a small number of high-performing researchers for its research productivity. We show here that supervisor team quality has a key impact on the PhD student’s outcomes. Therefore, having more highly trained researchers is likely to lead to overall higher research student productivity, such as in having a higher percentage of faculty members who are at full-professor level [ 12 ]. Strategies for strengthening the research capacity of academic staff and potential supervisors include [ 31 ] structured research mentoring of academic staff, formal requirements for further academic research training.

The strengths of this analysis include being a prospective analysis of outcomes based on data that were known at the time of student selection. The limitations of the analysis were that it was focussed on one faculty at one university. It was not possible to conduct this analysis more widely at our university or at other universities as not all faculties and universities collate the same data on their PhD applicants. It would be relevant to examine such patterns at a wider range of universities, however obtaining such data from other universities is further complicated by data from scholarship ranking being confidential internal university information. Whilst this study was comprised one university, we believe its findings can easily be extrapolated to other regions of Australia and/or the world. Furthermore, we focussed on outcomes from PhDs that relate to university ranking procedures. Other outcomes, such as employment achieved post-PhD, student satisfaction, mental health are important to consider more widely.

Conclusions

In conclusion, to best of our knowledge, our study is the first to examine the relative importance of the environment versus student ability in the allocation and outcomes of their PhD. Our key finding was that the research environment is likely more important for supporting PhD students to produce larger numbers of highly cited publications in higher impact journals. Once the minimum level of academic ability and research training is met for entry to PhD, working with a strong research focussed supervisory team, being embedded in a research intensive institute, and receiving a scholarship are also important factors for publication and citation outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 table. non-parametric effect sizes between the ranking criteria of the 198 unique phd applications and researcher metrics..

Data are Cohen’s d. Bold = P<0.05. GPA: Grade point average.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.s001

S2 Table. Parametric effect sizes between the ranking criteria of the 198 unique PhD applications and researcher metrics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.s002

S3 Table. Variability among variables by year of application.

Dependent variables are mean (standard deviation), expect withdrawing from PhD which are number (percentage within year). Explanatory variables are number (percentage within year). GPA: Grade point average.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.s003

S4 Table. Results from factorial ANOVA.

Data are F-value (corresponding P-value). ANOVA fits explanatory variables sequentially to the dependent variables. Explanatory variables were fitted to the dependent variables in the order above (i.e. top variable at left fitted first, followed by the second to top variable). This therefore accounted for potential association of student related factors first to PhD outcomes, with then having a scholarship and then supervisor related factors considered. Despite accounting for student related variables first, having a scholarship and supervisor quality were most consistently associated with outcomes from a student’s PhD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236327.s004

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Grant Michie, Rachelle DeBrito and their teams for assistance with access to enrolment and publication output data, Steve Sawyer for assistance in reviewing and accessing the scholarship application data and biostatistician A/Prof Steven Bowe for statistical advice.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Australian Government Department of Education. Research Training Program. Research Training Program https://www.education.gov.au/research-training-program (2019).
• 4. QS World University Rankings Methodology https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology (2018).
• 5. World University Rankings 2019: methodology https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2019-methodology (2018).
• 6. Academic Ranking of World Universities Methodology http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2018.html (2018).
• PubMed/NCBI
• 16. Haidar, H. PhD admission requirements. What is a PhD? https://www.topuniversities.com/blog/what-phd .
• 21. Rowe, K. The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. in 15–23 (2003).
• 30. The University of Melbourne. How are graduate research scholarships awarded? https://education.unimelb.edu.au/study/scholarships/scholarship-support .

All Departments: PhD Completion Rates Statistics

• Resources /

Why we should be talking about graduate student success

September 2, 2021, By Ed Venit , Managing Director, Strategic Research

• Facebook link
• Twitter link
• LinkedIn link
• Student Success and Experience
• Graduate Education
• Student Retention

Why we should be talking more about graduate student success

3 simple recommendations for this commonly overlooked retention challenge.

By Ed Venit

September 02, 2021 5 min read

Graduate student enrollments have expanded dramatically over the past two decades. For many schools, this has felt like a bit of a gold rush, with colleges and universities quickly adding programs and doubling down on recruitment efforts to capture their share of this emerging market. Graduate and professional student enrollments have grown to the point that they accounted for over one quarter of gross tuition revenue at universities in 2019. This trend continued during the early days of the pandemic, with the National Student Clearinghouse reporting that graduate enrollments were up over four percent during 2020, helping to offset a similar decline seen in undergraduate enrollments.

Related Podcast

Hear EAB experts Ed Venit and Amy Luitjens discuss graduate student success and how to help these students succeed.

Universities are counting on this boom to continue. But if we look beyond the near future, it’s clear this surge of enrollment is unlikely to continue at its current pace. The same Gen Z demographic contraction that is top-of-mind for today’s undergraduate enrollment managers will soon begin to impact the graduate space. Indeed, the National Center for Education Statistics had forecasted flat growth in graduate student enrollments between now and the end of the decade. We need to be doing more now to prepare for the inevitable tightening of the graduate student market.

Looking for more graduate student insights? EAB works with more than 100 institutions as part of our Adult Learner Recruitment initiative. Check out the Professional and Adult Education Blog.

We need to turn our attention to graduate student success

As recruitment of new students becomes steadily more difficult, graduate schools must pivot their enrollment strategies to put a greater emphasis on retention and graduation, just as their undergraduate counterparts have already been doing for the last half decade. Most provosts and undergraduate enrollment managers now see their retention efforts as not only the right thing to do for students, but also essential for ensuring the financial health of their institution s.

‘How good are we at retaining graduate students right now? In short, we don’t really know. Graduate programs are not subject to federal reporting on retention and completion rates, limiting transparency. What little we do know suggests we have ample room for improvement. For example, a 2013 study of five institutions by the Council of Graduate Schools found that just 66% of STEM master’s students completed within four years.

of STEM master’s students completed within four years

Graduate programs may be surprised to discover how underprepared they are for making this pivot. During the gold rush of the last decade, graduate deans understandably focused their attention on recruitment. Responsibility for student support often fell to individual academic units, many of which lack the scale and budget for big retention initiatives. Students were often left to fend for themselves under the prevailing assumption that graduate students don’t need much help since they’ve already succeeded in college once.

This is a faulty assumption. Many graduate students come directly out of undergrad or are only a few years removed. If these students needed academic, financial, and social support to earn their bachelor’s degrees, it stands to reason that they still need the same support once they enter graduate programs. Other graduate students who are further along in their lives and careers may need help to balance competing family and professional demands along with academic responsibilities, perhaps for the first time.

This combination of under-addressed student support needs and historically limited investment suggests that many graduate programs can register quick gains once they commit to making the pivot to focusing on graduate student success.

3 ways to get started

Recently, I had conversations with nearly two dozen graduate school administrators to learn how they support their students’ success and where they would like to take these efforts in the future. Unsurprisingly, almost none of these schools had developed robust strategies at either the college or university level, and most seemed to be just getting started thinking about the problem. When schools had taken initial actions, they tended to start with these three steps:

1. Define what success means for your graduate students

We most commonly measure undergraduate student success in terms of first-to-second year retention and graduation. As overly simplistic as these metrics might be , they form a common language to track improvement and are directly related to the goal of degree completion. The same can be said for some graduate programs, but not all. For example, law student success is commonly measured by bar passage rate, not graduation. Doctoral programs, which are often designed with attrition in mind, might want to instead put an emphasis on progress and time to degree for students who have advanced to candidacy.

2. Collect, review, and act on the data

During my conversations, I was surprised to find that most graduate programs have only a vague sense of how many of their students were being retained and graduated, something that would be unheard of in the undergraduate space. Many weren’t tracking formal metrics at all, and those that do usually lack a process by which senior leaders review the data and use it to make decisions on improvement. Absent these metrics, it will be impossible for graduate programs to foster a culture of data-informed decision making necessary to thrive in a more competitive environment.

How Dixie State University increased data access and use

3. Look for opportunities to extend existing undergraduate support services

A handful of the schools with which I spoke are already establishing graduate student support resources modelled off similar resources already deployed to help undergraduates . For example, dozens of EAB partners have added graduate students to the Navigate platform , allowing their advisors and support offices to see the same data for graduate students that they can already access for undergraduates. These were often isolated grassroots efforts, suggesting that a more comprehensive top-down strategy could identify many more opportunities to immediately support graduate students by expanding preexisting services and programs

Graduate students have become a critical source of tuition revenue for modern universities, but our approach to supporting these students feels antiquated. In many ways – from the lack of data collection to the fragmentation of services – our approach to graduate student support today feels as underdeveloped as our approach to undergraduates was twenty years ago . It’s time we made a commensurate investment in ensuring graduate students complete their degrees and get the value out of the investment they make in our schools and programs.

Ready to find out more?

See how National Louis University achieved a 2.9 percentage point increase in their graduate student retention rate.

SEE THEIR STORY

You may also like

What can we learn from first-year gpa, what major switching can tell us about student outcomes, q&a with middle tennessee state university, it appears you already have an account registered with us. please login below or reset your password..

Remember me

Reset Password Cancel

• Create an account
• Learn more about partnership

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Tress Academic

#46: What makes PhD students succeed?

March 24, 2020 by Tress Academic

Have you ever thought about what causes a PhD candidate to succeed in the end? What do those who complete successfully on time do differently from those who take way longer than initially planned or never make it in the end? – I would like to encourage you to do so! It can give you valuable insights for your own chances of successful completion. In this post I describe the top 5 factors that characterise successful PhD students, and you get an awesome free test to ‘Assess the factors that determine your own PhD success?’

The question ‘what makes PhD students succeed’ has puzzled me for many years. In the SMART ACADEMICS blogpost #39 ‘Why I teach PhD students how to succeed’ I have shared my initial motivation for this topic: during my PhD time I witnessed nearly all of my PhD colleagues drop out or complete many years later than originally planned. Years later when I was a university lecturer, that experience led me to start a course that helps PhD students overcome typical challenges, work that I have continued over the past decade at TRESS ACADEMIC. 

Working with over 2,000 international PhD students for 12+ years now, I have witnessed many times which skills differentiate those that are successful from those who are not. In this blog post, I want to give you the benefit of my experience and share with you the 5 factors that typically differentiate successful PhD candidates from the unsuccessful ones.  

How does this relate to you? If you are determined to complete your PhD on time, this is a golden ticket for you. Because as you’ll see, the factors that I describe do not come down to fate, genius, intelligence, or innate abilities! All of the factors boil down to complementary skills that you can learn! Yes, you can learn these skills! And if you are struggling with one or the other factor that I mention, you can start today and improve your underlying skill-set! You ARE able to increase your chances for a successful, on time completion! 

But I won’t simply tell you which factors determine success, I have compiled an awesome free test so you can ‘Assess the factors that determine PhD success for yourself’ 

What does ‘successfully on time’ mean?

There are numerous studies showing that a high percentage of PhD students do not complete within the given timeframe, or drop out and give up altogether. Among the first and most comprehensive studies are the US’ Council of Graduate Schools, 2008 and the UK’s HEFCE 2007 surveys. The US survey, which included PhD candidates from 29 US and Canadian Universities and tracked PhD candidates over 12 years, showed that only 55% had completed after 10 years. Not even 5% completed within a three year period. The UK survey shows the same low completion rate of less than 5% within a three year bracket. A recent study from the University of Delft in the Netherlands showed a completion rate of less than 5% in the standard period of four years (TU Delft 2019) . Several Scandinavian studies (Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse 2007, Högskoleverket 2011, NIFU 2012) and a study from the European Science Foundation (2017) show slightly better completion rates, but across countries and studies they still evidence that the majority of PhDs are completed with a big delay.

But let me clarify what I mean by ‘successfully on time’. In the end, there are two factors that make for a successful completion. One is the quality of your PhD dissertation, the other is the time it took you to complete it. As for the quality, you should always strive for the highest possible scientific quality within the available timeframe. So ’on time’ is always relative – in the end you determine what exactly this means for you! Let me give a few more details to make this point clear:

The vast majority of PhD candidates today has limited time available for the PhD. Their time is set by either the length of the contract, grant or scholarship, the PhD programme itself, or influenced by the traditions of the country in which you undertake the PhD. Presently, a period of 3 to 4 years for a full-time PhD-education is the most common. In addition, universities may limit the time you can be enrolled as a PhD student, so that it may not permit you to be enrolled in a PhD-study for more than 5 years initially, which can sometimes be prolonged through applying for an extension. So ‘on time’ is very clearly defined for most PhD students, but varies at the individual level. ‘On time’ for you means the time you have available, the time you were given by your programme or funding agency.

Exceeding the time granted by your funding can have multiple negative consequences ( Rooij et al. 2019) . And don’t get me wrong here, we’re not talking about a delay of a couple of weeks, we’re talking about delays of months or years. If you don’t manage to complete on time, you may be left entirely without funding, or be stuck depending on short-term stints as a researcher or teaching assistant while you still trying to finish your PhD. And there are detrimental side effects for your personal life, mental well-being and further career as well. But apart from ‘having to finish’ I assume you do ‘want to finish’ because this enables you to move on with your life and career and harvest the fruits of your PhD efforts sooner!

What do PhD candidates think the determining success factors are?

I pose the above question occasionally to participants in my course “How to complete your PhD successfully on time” to see how clear PhD students are on their ability to influence their success. And recently, I posted the following open question to several discussion groups on social media to see what PhD student’s own experience was: 

“What do you think makes some finish their PhD on time while others struggle for many years or drop out altogether? Ultimately – what makes the success of a PhD student?”

Here is a selection of the top answers:

“Perseverance.”

“Grit and commitment.”

“Determination.”

“Determination, grit, resilience”

“Determination, commitment and perseverance most of all. But having support makes a huge difference too.”

“Success of a PhD research student largely involves determination and focus, however, a supportive and committed supervisor with constructive feedback is the key to success.”

“Individuals who complete have realised that obtaining a doctorate isn’t completely based on intellectual capacity, but perseverance, endurance, and fortitude.”

“Not giving up in moments of anxiety and helplessness.”

“Clear goals, hard work is essential, but not sufficient.”

“Goals and targets. Manageable tasks. Believe in yourself.”

“PhDs are hard. Good supervision and writing habits help.”

“When I started my programme I told them I’ve got 2 and a quarter years. The department chair tried to tell me otherwise, but I don’t listen well. I have a timeline for my life and so 2 years and 1 quarter later I finished! You’ve got to make-up your mind before you start.”

“They told me the average is 6 years here. I was like ‘not I said the cat!’ I told them I’d finish in 3.5 years and I did. That’s the commitment I made to myself. So there you have it: 1. Clear goals. 2. self care, 3. support system. That’s how you finish on time.”

“Tenacity and really great time management skills are absolutely necessary for success. I developed a strong sense of resilience and stayed focused on my ultimate goal of completing the PhD.”

My experience

These comments very much reflect my own experience after teaching PhD students for so many years. The vast majority of answers point to one or more specific complementary skill! There are a handful of factors that stick out and are mentioned over and over again. And if you have a closer look, you’ll realise that they are not science related! 

Producing new scientific insights is a must, of course, and you need scientific knowledge and methods for this. I will always suggest you strive for the highest possible scientific quality in your work. But there’s a whole lot of things that, strictly speaking have little to do with how good your science is. In the end, there’s a number of decisive factors and their underlying complementary skills that are necessary in order to complete successfully (see figure 1).

Figure 1:  Decisive factors influencing PhD success

Let me give you more details on the determining factors and related skills and then you can see for yourself how good you are at mastering them with our free test ‘Assess the factors that determine PhD success?’

The top 5 distinguishing factors of successful PhD students:

1. mental strengths: focus, determination & commitment.

PhD candidates who complete successfully often display a burning desire to obtain the PhD degree from the start. The have the ability to singularly focus on their PhD study and concentrate their efforts – like a laser beam – on the one goal of getting their PhD degree. That makes them good at shrugging off distractions and prevents them from getting sidetracked. They display commitment in not only saying they want a PhD degree, but putting in all available efforts and resources to make it happen. They ‘own’ their project and show a high degree of responsibility for every single aspect and its timely completion. Determination helps them in times when the PhD work is anything but fun, when working on difficult tasks, when they experience major setbacks, when they do not seem to make progress or the final success still seems light years away.  

These characteristics require mental strength, a high degree of self-control and self-awareness, which may require a shift in mindset. It is possible to work on these traits and there are smart techniques that can help you to adapt a different mindset that will allow you to increase your chances of successful completion. Since you determine the attitude with which you approach your PhD, you can influence this factor! Sport athletes, world-class musicians and top-performers in businesses use techniques to influence their mind-set to be more successful and so can you!

2. Manag ing time

PhD candidates who complete successfully have a clear sense that time is a limited and precious resource. They have a sense of urgency for their PhD and therefore avoid wasting time with activities that have little effect on their PhD projects in the end. They have the time management skills to make the best possible use of their time in the long run, but more importantly practicing it every single day. They plan their days out, know what to do and focus their efforts accordingly. 

Excellent time-management can be learned – there are fantastic and proven techniques that are fine-tuned for scientific environments, can easily be implemented into your workday and can super boost your productivity. If you master a few key techniques and your time better, you will increase you chances for timely completion.

3. Goal-setting and managing the PhD project

Successful PhDs have a clear and specific goal for their project. It’s not just a lofty idea that meanders and changes, but a set of written research questions that they have shared and discussed with their supervisors. As a consequence, they also have a clear idea of how to approach their research questions, like which methods to apply. That enables them to breakdown the major steps in their project and plan the timeline until completion. 

The underlying skill here is project-management, and there are sophisticated methods for dealing with the specific requirements of scientific projects. It can be learned! Planning and managing your project increases your chances to finish with the results you want in the time you have.

4. Good writing skills

PhD candidates who complete successfully are able to find time to write and produce scientific text regularly. They approach writing as a task that has to be done, just as they work on any other task for their PhD project. They have the ability to tackle the challenge of writing and have mastered the technique itself. They don’t procrastinate or keep dissertation writing until it is too late, but start writing bits and pieces early on, often in preliminary formats. Successful PhDs master the various types of scientific communication like peer-reviewed papers, abstracts, conference papers, the dissertation, a monograph, or book chapters (depending on how relevant they are for their subject area). They understand that writing about one’s research results is an inherent part of their work as a scientist. For them, it’s like two sides of one coin: they do research and communicate about it. 

One underlying ability of successfully academic writing is having the right ‘frame of mind’ and the confidence to tackle a challenging writing task (an entire dissertation). Another is to master the craft of writing. This means realizing that no one is born a ‘great scientific writer’, but that you will be able to become a prolific writer with professional input and the right writing strategies. Writing is a skill that you can train like a muscle and there are super efficient strategies to beef-up your writing abilities. Like any muscle, you’ve got to practice to get stronger! Check-out our SMART ACADEMICS blog-post no 5: How to get started with writing!  

5. Supervis ion

Successful PhD students manage to work with their supervisors in a way that supports them in undertaking their research and completing their projects. Not all supervisors provide excellent supervision, but successful PhD students manage to complete nonetheless. They often display the ability to benefit from the strengths of their individual supervisors and use it to their advantage, while carefully navigating or compensating for the deficiencies of others. 

The underlying skill is to be able to communicate with supervisors in a professional and efficient way. This is a relationship between two professionals, you and your supervisor. How you act, behave and communicate has a great deal of influence on the relationship. Professional communication with the supervisor can of course be learned, and through good and open communication, you can improve and optimise your supervision. 

What does this mean for you?

You’re probably not used to this way of thinking and you have eventually not thought about what will make you succeed with your PhD in the end. Maybe you need a while to get around to this way of thinking and then you realise how powerful it is! What I described above has two logic consequences for you: 

• First: You can influence your own PhD success! The underlying skills that are required can be trained by professionals and you can implement them in your own PhD. It’s not massively difficult, but it needs dedicated skills training, practice and attention!
• Second: Because the 5 factors mentioned above have such a big influence on PhD success, you should look at how competent you are at these required skills right now. Then you can figure out which ones you have to improve in order to optimise your chances of completion. If you can master these skills, you can master your PhD. For this purpose and to let you start right now, we’ve created our awesome free test ‘Assess the factors that determine PhD success?’

You know it is part of our mission at TRESS ACADEMIC to help academics succeed and PhD candidates complete! We’re on a continuous journey to improve our offers for you and that’s why we offer a short free PhD Webinar that will give you further hints how to recalibrate your PhD process and gear it towards success. Sign up now , so you don’t miss out on this opportunity and we’ll give you a short when the next one is available.

Related resources:

• Smart Academics Blog #5: How to get started with writing papers
• Smart Academics Blog #47: Plan your project – save your PhD!
• Smart Academics Blog #56: Breaking these 5 habits will speed up your thesis writing!
• Smart Academics Blog #85: Planning your PhD workday
• Smart Academics Blog #100: PhD success stories that motivate!
• Expert Guide: 5 reasons why PhD students delay and how to avoid
• Council of Graduate Schools (ed.) 2008. Ph.D. Completion and Attrition: Analysis of Baseline Demographic Data from the Ph.D. Completion Project. CGS-Publications: Washington DC.
• Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse 2007. Ph.d.er i tal. Forskeruddannelsesstatistik 2005-2006. 
• European Science Foundation: 2017 Career Tracking Survey of Doctorate Holders. Project Report . 
• Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) 2007. PhD research degrees – update. Entry and completion. HEFCE Issues paper 2007/28.
• Högskoleverket, Statistika centralbyrån (SCB) 2011. Universitet och högskolor. Doktorander och examina på forskarnivå 2011. Serie Utbildning och forskning. 21 Juni 2012.
• Manathunga, C. 2005. “Early Warning Signs in Postgraduate Research Education: A Different Approach to Ensuring Timely Completions.” Teaching in Higher Education 10 (2): 219–233. 
• Norsk Institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning (NIFU-STEP), 2009. Gjennomstrømning i doktorgradsutdanningen. NIFU-STEP Rapport 40/2009.
• Norsk Institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskning og utdanning, (NIFU) 2012. PhD education in a knowledge society. An evaluation of PhD education in Norway. NIFU Report 25/2012. 
• Rooij E. van, Fokkens-Bruinsma  M., & Jansen E. 2019: Factors that influence PhD candidates’ success: the importance of PhD project characteristics, Studies in Continuing Education, DOI: 10.1080/0158037X.2019.1652158  
• Schoot R. van de, Yerkes M. A. Mouw J. M., and Sonneveld H. 2013. “What Took Them So Long Explaining PhD Delays among Doctoral Candidates.” PLOS ONE 8 (7): e68839.

Related courses and services:

• PhD Success Lab (Digital mentoring programme)
• Supervision-Coaching (1-to-1 Advice package)

More information: 

Do you want to successfully complete your PhD study? If so, please sign up to receive our free guides .    

© 2020 Tress Academic

Photograph by thisisengineering at unsplash.com

#PhDCandidate, #PhD, #PhDstudy, #PhDCompletion, #PhDSuccess, 

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Strategies for Success in a Nursing PhD Program and Beyond

Marlena c. fisher.

a Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, 525 N. Wolfe St, Baltimore, Maryland, 21205, USA

Tamryn F. Gray

b Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02215, USA

c Phyllis F. Cantor Center for Research in Nursing & Patient Care Services, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02215, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

d Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02115, USA

Melissa K. Uveges

e Boston College, William F. Connell School of Nursing, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, 02467, USA

Katherine E. Heinze

f Christine E Lynn College of Nursing, Florida Atlantic University, 77 Glades Road, Boca Raton, Florida, 33431, USA

Tiffany P. Pellathy

g VA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, University Drive (151C), Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA

h University of Pittsburgh, School of Nursing, 3500 Victoria Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA

Elaina Parrillo

Marilyn hravnak, marie t. nolan.

The purpose of this article is to inform newly enrolled PhD students of program expectations, strategies for success, and next steps in the career of a nurse scientist.

We used empirical evidence and insights from the authors to describe strategies for success during a nursing PhD program and continued career development following graduation.

Measures of success included maintaining health, focus, integrity, and a supportive network, identifying mentors, pursuing new knowledge and advancing research to transform health outcomes.

Nursing PhD programs help to shape future researchers and leaders. Choosing to obtain a PhD in nursing is an investment in oneself, the discipline, and the science.

Clinical Relevance

Nursing PhD programs offer opportunities to advance science, impact healthcare and health outcomes, and prepare for a variety of career opportunities. Informing newly enrolled PhD students may better prepare them for what lies ahead and facilitate student retention.

Introduction

Globally, nations have identified the value of PhD educated citizens to advance national objectives through research and innovation ( Hancock, 2021 ). A research doctorate, or PhD, in nursing enables an individual to generate new scientific knowledge to guide and transform the nursing profession and advance the health of individuals, communities and populations. Moreover, the digitalization of healthcare through innovations in data science, artificial intelligence and robotics is creating unprecedented opportunities for those with a PhD in nursing to advance the quality and access to health care to be responsive to underserved populations. However, there are barriers to increasing the nurse scientist workforce that include the current shortage of nurse scientist mentors, finances to educate the next generation and the 22.7% attrition rate specific to nursing PhD students after approximately 4 years of study ( Broome & Fairman, 2018 ; NINR, 2020 ; Fang & Zhan, 2021 ; AACN, 2021 ). Additionally, many students report that aspects of their PhD studies were unexpected and stressful, including the transition from expert clinician to novice researcher and the rigorous critique of their work as part of the research process (Tyndall et al., 2020). Some wish that they had been better prepared for their doctoral studies and future career. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to prepare students newly enrolled in a PhD program in nursing for their doctoral studies, a possible postdoctoral fellowship, and a career as a nurse scientist by providing information on PhD in nursing programs and strategies for success in doctoral studies.

Main Elements of a Nursing PhD Program

PhD programs differ on whether they require coursework, the number and format of examinations, the composition of the dissertation, and whether additional research or teaching experiences are required. Despite differences in program curriculum, the overall goal of nursing PhD programs in the U.S. is to prepare students with the foundational knowledge and skills to critique and conduct research throughout their career, not just for the dissertation. . Coursework commonly includes statistics, philosophy, research methods, and measurement ( AACN, 2010 ; AACN, 2021 ). Students may also pursue complementary coursework and research residencies that allow for greater depth of understanding about a particular research area and the responsibilities and activities of scientists. Key skills that students will develop include analytic skills, the ability to communicate ideas clearly and conduct rigorous research in a manner that is reproducible. Ideally, graduates are then prepared for entry into several different types of careers with some degree of independence. These can include academic appointments, healthcare systems leadership, foundation research positions, policy analysts, a variety of government positions and industry research positions.

Common milestones in a PhD program include examinations that may cover the content of several core courses and/or the content of the dissertation proposal and a final oral exam that is a defense of the dissertation research. The specific milestones and their timing depend on the program and the scope of the dissertation research. Programs may also differ on the required format of the dissertation. A common option involves multiple manuscripts that make a new contribution to the science addressed by the dissertation.

Research residencies, sometimes called research assistantships, may also take on several forms, such as mentored research opportunities and internships under the direction of the dissertation advisor or another faculty member to provide the student with a variety of mentored research experiences that may be related to but are not the student’s dissertation research project. Through participation in these residences, PhD students gain many skills, including grant writing, navigation of institutional review board (IRB) applications, systematic reviews, data collection, different research methodologies and a range of analytic methods, manuscript writing and dissemination. If the student is enrolled in a school that does not conduct a wide range of research, there may be opportunities to seek additional research experiences with mentors in other schools or universities or through internship programs. Since graduates of nursing PhD programs commonly pursue academic faculty appointments, many PhD programs also require or offer voluntary teaching assistantships in which the student is assigned to assist a faculty member in teaching a clinical or didactic course or may teach a course independently ( Dunbar-Jacob & Hravnak, 2021 ). This assistantship may include grading course assignments, developing a course, teaching a course section, hosting office hours, or leading test review sessions. Research residencies and teaching assistantships provide very valuable experiences that will enable graduates to function with greater confidence as a new researcher and teacher. Examples of these experiences are presented in Table 1 .

Examples of Research/Teaching Assistantships of the Authors

Preparing to Begin the Nursing PhD Program

Upon PhD program acceptance, students may take satisfaction in reflecting on this accomplishment and know that faculty believe in the students’ promising future as a successful nurse scientist. Doctoral studies will differ significantly from the undergraduate program and any other studies that were not at the doctoral level. Embarking on the nursing PhD program demonstrates commitment to a research career that includes a strong interest in research and scholarship aligned with the expertise of one or more faculty researchers at a chosen institution ( AACN Pathways to Excellence, 2010 ). When students first enter the PhD program, there is a bit of an “iceberg illusion”, meaning that what is apparent on the surface may not reveal the full context. For instance, first-year PhD students will become aware that students in the years ahead of them are securing grants to fund their dissertation work, publishing papers, and securing leadership opportunities, and may feel daunted by these achievements. However, the first-year PhD students may not be aware that grants may have been submitted more than once prior to funding or that manuscripts may have been rejected initially. Similar to an iceberg, the effort that happens beneath the surface is an often-unseen iterative building of knowledge and skills to achieve that success. Notably, over time, the culture of learning, writing, welcoming critique, revising and re-writing for a successful outcome is a process that the faculty model and students practice until it becomes second nature.

Enrolled PhD students can use the time prior to starting the program to explore the biography pages of faculty in the School of Nursing and other schools at the university, such as medicine or public health, to identify faculty who have a program of research that matches their research interests. For example, reviewing faculty members’ publications allows students to gain insight into research projects that faculty members lead. This knowledge is the beginning step in building a mentorship team.

Prior to beginning the PhD program, students can prepare by bolstering existing stress management and relaxation techniques such as through new hobbies, walking, dance, yoga, etc. If students are moving to a new geographical area, it may be beneficial to plan a move early enough to explore the area and the options available for recreation and stress relief. The transition into a doctoral program can be stressful as students navigate new roles as student, researcher, and teacher ( Dewa et al., 2020 ). In addition to these new roles, doctoral students may experience stress from finances, outside demands, and the program itself ( Volkert et al., 2018 ). It is important to recognize these potential stressors and have strategies for mitigating problems arising from stress. Specific financial stressors may include securing additional income to support housing, food and transportation during the program and identifying funding to support tuition and dissertation research ( Volkert et al., 2018 ). Understanding available financial support is part of the application process and the decision to enroll in the chosen PhD program. Having a clear understanding of all anticipated costs, as well as funding through scholarships and grants, can help doctoral students feel better prepared as they enter the program. Smith and Delmore (2007) provide resources for financial aid, scholarships, and dissertation expenses such as NIH, American Nursing Foundation, Sigma Theta Tau International and others.

During the Nursing PhD Program

In countries where nursing PhD coursework is required, content typically includes nursing theory, statistics, and research methods to support development of foundational scientific knowledge. In contrast to BSN and MSN programs, doctoral education is often a highly individualized program of study, designed in collaboration with mentors to build content expertise, research skills, and additional skills that are unique to the student’s career goals ( Conn et al., 2014 ). Thus, PhD students will need to identify elective courses that complement their required coursework, help achieve education and research goals, and support current and future research. Additional coursework in education or a teaching certificate should also be considered if their goal is an academic position. It is important to determine what courses are required to meet specific program milestones and negotiate with faculty to guide independent studies if needed. Developing a term-by-term and year-by-year curriculum plan early on is helpful, even if it is amended over time as interests and goals change. The coursework in PhD programs is designed to systematically advance research skills. Doctoral course work assignments may serve as a foundation for scholarly productivity, including development of such assignments into abstracts, presentations, and/or manuscripts. Specific strategies for achieving this include reviewing announcements related to conference abstract submissions, engaging with an advisor on course assignments that might be published, working with a librarian to update and format references to meet journal or conference guidelines, and planning how such course and research residency assignments may provide an opportunity to gain new research skills, as well as advance the work of the dissertation. It may be beneficial to discuss these topics during ongoing meetings with advisors. Demonstrating scholarly productivity is essential for securing competitive pre- and post-doctoral awards, and other positions. An overview of goals and strategies to aid in progression throughout the PhD program are presented in Table 2 .

Goals and Strategies by Year

Relationship with Advisor and Mentorship Team

Doctoral students will need to navigate their relationship with their advisor throughout the PhD program. Students can promote the success of the advisor-advisee relationship by being prepared for meetings, remaining motivated, committed to improvement, and asking thoughtful questions ( Ferreira et al., 2009 ). Creating an agenda for mentor meetings is important for staying focused and achieving meeting goals. It is important to note that there is variation in the advisor and mentorship team’s capacity and involvement in the various aspects of doctoral education. Therefore, open communication about expectations and achievable milestones in the mentor-mentee relationship is important to establish expectations at the beginning of the PhD program.

Research is a collaborative process and there is value in having formal, informal, interdisciplinary and “near-peer mentors” (students a few years ahead). Networking is an important skill to hone that requires intentional effort to find mentors and peers with similar research or methods interests who can aid in advancing their knowledge of research, design, and data interpretation. If the school where a student is enrolled has limited faculty involved in the specific research or methodological approach in which the student is interested, the student might consider seeking additional mentors and peers outside of the school or institution who can collaborate on projects.

Students commonly develop a strong, central mentorship team concentrated on their research topic, but also have mentors for other areas of development outside of research. Investing time in opportunities that allow them to improve their ability to critically appraise research, gain experience navigating the peer review process, and understand different grant mechanisms and the application process is essential. Proficiency in dissemination, both written (abstracts, manuscripts, dissertation thesis, professional writing) and oral (presentations to science and non-science audiences, articulating research focus, lectures), is critical for success as a scientist ( Conn et al., 2017 ). This developmental work requires an ongoing investment of time by both student and mentors to cultivate and advance these skills ( Schrager & Sadowski, 2016 ; Kwok, 2020 ). Time management, planning, organizing projects and budgets and navigating conflict are also skills that are fundamental to leading a research team. Students can identify mentors inside and outside of their school, university or health system who can model these skills and provide insight into these processes.

Communicating openly and often with the student faculty advisor, faculty mentors, and with “near peer mentors” to confirm understanding of program expectations, design an individual development plan (IDP) to facilitate success during matriculation and prepare for building a program of research following graduation ( Thompson et al., 2020 ) is beneficial. Thompson and colleagues (2020) present guidelines, resources, and a template of what could be included in an IDP. Reviewing and revising the IDP at least annually with student advisors and other mentors is recommended.

Challenges may arise in the student’s relationships with a peer, mentor, advisor, or committee member, and not all relationships work out. When this occurs, it is important to take time to individually reflect on what is difficult or unhelpful about the relationship and determine if or how the challenge can be remedied. This can be particularly difficult when there is a history of discordant viewpoints on the student’s education or grant preparation between the student and the primary advisor. In these situations, when conflicts are intractable, it may be important to consider whether there is a need to change advisors by engaging in personal reflection and having discussions with trusted family, friends, peers, mentors, and/or the PhD program director. Some universities have an ombudsman for PhD students and Postdoctoral fellows who is a confidential source for consultation and advice for issues such as this. During this process, it is important to have iterative conversation about the issues that are arising. If the student and advisor decide that the best course of action is to change advisors, it is important for the student to outline why this change would be beneficial and identify potential new advisors that are better aligned in terms of focus and capacity for mentorship. Each institution has a different process for changing advisors, but the key in any mentorship relationship is to have an open, honest, and respectful dialogue.

Building and Maintaining Research Integrity

Nursing PhD programs educate students in the responsible conduct of research and provide formal instruction and demonstration of ethical principles through scientific mentorship. Given the potential for the demands of doctoral study to be stressful ( Ganske, 2010 ), an environment of trust and collaboration and continuous teaching about the ethical conduct of research is important ( Fierz et al., 2014 ). Throughout the PhD program, students will naturally find opportunities to talk with their mentors about research integrity, ask questions about general ethical principles, and learn the importance of complying with institutional policies and legal requirements related to research. Mentoring relationships that are established early in the PhD program can result in long-lasting positive impacts on research performance. Maintaining scientific integrity in collaborative relationships requires a diverse community of scholars dedicated to excellence in scholarship and committed to meeting the ethical goals of research through transparent discourse, commitment to the goals of the collaboration, and preservation of the public’s trust ( Ulrich et al., 2015 ).

In the PhD program, a number of virtues are central to being a “good” researcher. Virtues are defined as the intellectual and moral qualities to which scientists aspire; the qualities that take them to their natural ends, ultimately the qualities that make them good human beings ( PérezñPinar & Ayerbe, 2017 ). Virtues develop over time, through practice and imitation ( Resnik, 2012 ) and include courage, equity, respectfulness, resoluteness, sincerity, humility, and reflexivity ( MacFarlane, 2010 ). PhD students can seek to develop these virtues, as they are a component of ethical excellence in research ( PérezñPinar & Ayerbe, 2017 ). Also important is the PhD student’s development of ethical awareness, or the awareness of the inherent ethical nature of all nursing practice ( Milliken, 2018 ) and research. The ANA Code of Ethics for Nurses is the profession’s normative guide for nurses’ behavior and conduct in whatever role they serve, including as a researcher ( American Nurses Association [ANA], 2015 ). In particular, provision 7 of the ANA Code states the importance of nurses in all roles and settings advancing “the profession through research and scholarly inquiry, professional standards development, and the generation of both nursing and health policy” ( ANA, 2015 ). This does not mean that all nurses must conduct research; however, all nurses interact with research, either as researchers or utilizers of research ( Fowler, 2015 ). To gain research competencies, PhD students require education and experience in ethical principles, theories, and analytic frameworks, which in combination with virtues can help students navigate the moral intricacies of their own program of research ( Grace, 2018 ). Finally, remaining grounded in personal values can further develop an individual’s moral compass so that research is conducted with integrity. Maintaining scientific integrity involves respecting not just the research participants, but also the well-being of the physical and institutional environments and wider communities ( MacFarlane, 2010 ; Fowler, 2015 ).

Developing Leadership Skills

Nurse scientists require leadership skills to guide teams in policy, research, industry, hospitals, foundations, and become stewards of the discipline. During the PhD experience there are opportunities to gain leadership experience formally and informally. There are several opportunities to lead at the school level, such as the PhD student organization/student senate. Additionally, there are leadership opportunities within organizations, such as the Jonas Scholars program, AACN, and National League for Nursing (NLN). To increase representation of underrepresented and historically marginalized populations in leadership positions, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation created the Health Policy Research Scholars to develop future leaders in health. Leadership development programs may include personality tests that reveal individual strengths while demonstrating that others have different approaches to similar work with common goal achievement. Informal leadership skills can be developed by mentoring doctoral students who are junior to the student. Mentorship is a crucial tenet of being a nurse scientist because educating the next generation of nurses and researchers is how we can continue to advance the discipline ( Morris et al., 2021 , AACN, 2021 ).

Managing PhD Program Demands

PhD program demands, including research residencies, writing academic papers, and developing a dissertation topic, can be stressful for students. Instead of aiming for perfection, setting small achievable goals for each endeavor is recommended. Getting to the final goal is a process that is incrementally developed, implemented, and accomplished over time. PhD students should try to remember to have confidence in their work and to celebrate accomplishments instead of scrutinizing their own work as never quite good enough ( Eleftheriades et al., 2020 ). Further, students may find that what may initially seem like failures are learning opportunities; rejected grants or manuscripts for publication often come with a treasure trove of in-depth critique from leaders in the student’s field of study and contribute to progress in their next iteration. Thus, illustrating that rejection can foster growth rather than despair.

Balancing PhD Program Demands with Personal Demands

As a PhD student, maintaining a healthy balance between studies, family, friends or personal needs is important. To achieve balance, consider defining important personal or family needs or priorities and organize other commitments around those needs. Essential PhD program requirements are demanding on their own and many students pursue coursework, research and teaching residencies beyond what is required. It is important for students to know what additional commitments they can take on without causing undue stress in their personal lives ( Stott, 2019 ). Having a strong support system of family and friends can facilitate success ( Volkert et al., 2018 ). If possible, it’s important to consider negotiating the distribution of household responsibilities and tasks. Maintaining friendships with people outside of the doctoral program and checking in with peers in the program, provides an excellent resource for ideas and support. Cultivating peer relationships within the institution and beyond is an active process that requires active listening, honesty, and respect. Peers can be a great support, but they can also be a stressor. It is important to set boundaries and practice the support you wish to receive in return. As a student, it’s important to have the capacity to recognize when individual physical, emotional or intellectual capacities have been reached and ask for help ( Melnyk et al., 2016 ). Setting times that are dedicated to work and only completing work or answering emails within those times, and taking a vacation, or engaging in other activities that bring joy, can allow for needed breaks from work ( Buettner, et al., 2011 ; Stott, 2019 ; “The Importance of Taking a Break,” 2018 ). Maintaining balance between program and personal demands is crucial to success, but it is also difficult to navigate, especially in the beginning of the program. Achieving balance is a process of understanding the program demands, identifying personal needs, and selecting effective self-care strategies, which will vary based on the individual.

Engaging in Lifelong Learning

PhD prepared nurses fulfill important roles in improving the health of individuals, communities and populations such as knowledge generation, theory development, education, translating research to clinical practice, and leadership ( Driefurst et al., 2016 ). Developing skills to fulfill these roles is a lifelong process that unfolds over time through continuous education, mentorship, and career planning. A major facet of lifelong learning is the ability to be curious, dynamic, and open to new innovations. For example, emerging technologies in education and health care such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality, machine learning and robotics have resulted in new innovations that have greatly advanced research, healthcare, and health outcomes ( Buchanan et al., 2020 ; Roberts, 2019 ). Growth of scientific knowledge does not cease at the point of graduation. New areas of knowledge, methodologies, and interventions continue to become available, evolve, and are retired. The successful nurse scientist commits to a lifetime of following the literature, attending professional conferences, and engaging in coursework to keep knowledge current and innovative.

Preparing for Next Steps: Postdoctoral Fellowships

Defining the postdoctoral fellowship.

A post-doctoral fellowship is defined as a formalized opportunity for individuals holding doctoral degrees to “engage in a temporary period of mentored research and/or scholarly education for the purpose of acquiring the professional skills needed to pursue a chosen career path” ( National Postdoctoral Association, n.d. ). A postdoctoral fellowship might involve educational components (i.e., coursework), research education, individual mentoring, and/or career training components ( Lor et al., 2019 ; Reid Ponte et al., 2015 ; Miller, 2012 ). If moving directly to a faculty position, tenure generally must be achieved within a certain time period and securing significant external grant funding is expected within the first several years. Therefore, a PhD student’s funding, publication productivity, and preliminary findings by graduation will provide insight into whether a faculty position or a postdoctoral fellowship is more appropriate.

Choosing a Postdoctoral Fellowship

There are several factors to consider when choosing a postdoctoral fellowship. For instance, postdoctoral fellowships have traditionally been supported through federally funded training grants or the grants of faculty investigators in universities. However, increasingly, non-academic settings, such as industry, hospitals, governmental organizations, and even nonprofit organizations have established post-doctoral opportunities ( Lor et al., 2019 ; Reid Ponte et al., 2015 ). While nursing-specific post-doctoral fellowships are available, nurses might choose to pursue a fellowship within an interdisciplinary setting, such as a Center for Bioethics where individuals come from various professional backgrounds, or in another discipline, such as public health or medicine ( Nolan et al., 2009 ). The delivery format of the position should also be considered, and may include virtual, on site, or hybrid models. The fellowship setting the student chooses is dependent on specific career goals, but in any case, should lead the student to independence as a scientist.

Discerning Postdoctoral Program Fit

Postdoctoral fellowships can be evaluated by their fit to the fellow’s interests, research training needs, and career trajectory. The fellowship may involve a research project with a purpose and aims that aligns with yet is distinctly separate from the fellowship mentor’s research, so that independence can be achieved. Choosing a fellowship with a strong mentor match is extremely important since a significant amount of time will be spent working with this individual or the individual’s team. A mentor will provide individualized guidance and tailored training to the fellow’s research needs ( Sherry et al., 2013 ; Conn et al., 2005 ). In addition to mentor fit, institutional fit is important for a postdoctoral fellowship. Speaking with other postdoctoral fellows and junior and senior faculty within the institution where the fellowship is located is one way to assess institutional fit. For example, those considering a particular postdoctoral fellowship might inquire about whether the institution specializes in areas important to their research, how mentorship support is structured within the institution, whether institutional staff will be available to assist with grant writing, submission, and data analysis, and what research or other academic resources are available to postdoctoral fellows ( Lor et al., 2019 ). Hearing the experiences of others at the institution can help those considering a postdoctoral fellowship to assess their overall alignment with institutional strengths in subject content, methodological approaches, or access to other training experiences, which are necessary for launching an independent career.

Postdoctoral Eligibility and Application Process

Other aspects of postdoctoral fellowships to consider are the application criteria and eligibility requirements. Eligibility criteria for a post-doctoral fellowship might include being a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, holding an active clinical license (i.e., RN, APN), or having additional degrees (i.e., master’s degree) ( Sherry et al., 2013 ; Lor et al., 2019 ). There are postdoctoral opportunities for non-U.S. citizens at various universities. The Fogarty International Center at NIH is one source of funding for international fellows ( https://www.fic.nih.gov/Programs/Pages/scholars-fellows-global-health.aspx ). Application requirements will vary, but common components of a postdoctoral application include essays conveying the applicant’s interest and fit with the fellowship, including their future research plans; submission of a curriculum vitae; and letters of reference ( Sherry et al., 2013 ). Other selection criteria might include the applicant’s academic record, prior experience with research, publications, and match with a potential faculty mentor’s research focus ( Lor et al., 2019 ). Many postdoctoral fellowship applications include an interview, and it is valuable to visit the institution to assess fit and compatibility ( Lor et al., 2019 ). It is not uncommon to pursue more than one fellowship opportunity, as these positions are competitive, and a backup plan is needed.

Postdoctoral Funding and Lifestyle Considerations

Funding and life-style considerations are also important when deciding whether to pursue a postdoctoral fellowship. Most traditional fellowship positions receive funding through formal funding agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, or non-federal organizations, such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ( Lor et al., 2019 ). Identifying institutions, which have these funded postdoctoral fellowship positions can highlight regions where such opportunities exist. Non-traditional postdoctoral fellowships also exist and are funded through various means. Entry level faculty roles (i.e., Research Associate), which are intended to ease the individual into academia, have some similarities to postdoctoral fellowships although there may be expectations for teaching even if not to the extent of a ranked faculty position would require. At the conclusion of a postdoctoral fellowship, the individual will be in a good position to apply for a ranked faculty position ( Lor et al., 2019 ). While post-doctoral fellowship salaries vary, the average range is substantially lower than salaries for entry tenure-track assistant professor positions ( Lor et al., 2019 ) with smaller benefit packages. During a postdoctoral fellowship, there may be an opportunity to perform additional activities, such as teaching, for additional income, but consideration of the individual’s needed earnings is an important aspect of weighing the pursuit of a postdoctoral fellowship. Other factors, such as family obligations or inability to relocate, may take priority and thus prohibit consideration of a postdoctoral opportunity ( Lor et al., 2019 ; Sherry et al., 2013 ).

Knowledge, Skills, & Abilities Gained During a Postdoctoral Fellowship

A post-doctoral fellowship can advance an individual’s knowledge, skills, abilities and preparation for a future career in academia, research, or policy. Coursework may be part of the formal learning within a postdoctoral fellowship and can expand learning to include new methods, novel scientific content areas, or other disciplinary learning that can advance one’s research ( Nolan et al., 2009 ). During a postdoctoral fellowship, an individual may have an opportunity to become a member of a larger research team, working together with researchers across nursing or various disciplines to conduct study investigations ( Nolan et al., 2009 ).

For those who did not receive extensive teaching experience during their PhD education, but wish to pursue an academic career, a postdoctoral fellowship in universities may offer mentored and/or independent teaching experiences. Since teaching experience can enhance an individual’s ability to secure a faculty appointment, seeking to add some teaching to the postdoctoral research work can prove to be beneficial. Furthermore, a postdoctoral fellowship provides focused mentorship in strengthening writing for publication. A systematic review of fifteen studies concluded that there is a significant increase in the number of scientific peer-reviewed publications by those who have completed a postdoctoral fellowship ( Hafsteinsdottir et al., 2017 ). Similarly, postdoctoral fellowship mentoring has been shown to make a significant difference in the number of competitive grants secured ( Hafsteinsdottir et al., 2017 ).

Postdoctoral fellowships will ideally offer opportunities to advance grant writing skills and collect preliminary data to support an independent grant submission for a career development award (i.e., K01) or R level NIH grant. Finally, a postdoctoral fellowship can provide an important opportunity for early career scientists to form research networks and build valuable collaborations ( Nolan et al., 2009 ; Reid Ponte et al., 2015 ). These collaborations further positively influence research productivity and career development ( Hafsteinsdottir et al., 2017 ).

PhD prepared nurse scientists are in great demand to educate and mentor the next generation of nurses. For students enrolled in a PhD program, employing specific strategies to maintain their health, social network, and to develop as a researcher while advancing their knowledge, skills, and abilities to be a lifelong learner are imperative to successful progression throughout the PhD milestones and beyond. Choosing to obtain a PhD in nursing is a personal career investment, and an investment in the future of nursing and nursing science. Next steps after PhD graduation may include a post-doctoral fellowship to help with the transition to an independent nurse scientist, working as an academic researcher, policy analyst, consultant in industry, or a position within a government agency, among other opportunities.

Highlights:

• Clear program expectations prior to enrollment prepare PhD students for success
• Networking can identify mentors and advance the development peer relationships
• Establishing career goals at the outset will guide plans for learning

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number F31NR019211 “Informal Advance Care Planning with Family in Blacks with End Stage Renal Disease on Dialysis”. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. This work was also supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Future of Nursing Scholars Program Postdoctoral Research Award and the Cambia Health Foundation Sojourns Scholars Leadership Program.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

• American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2019). Fact sheet: Nursing shortage . https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/News/Factsheets/Nursing-Shortage-Factsheet.pdf
• American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2010). “ The research-focused doctoral program in nursing: Pathways to excellence [Draft] .” https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/Publications/PhDPosition.pdf
• American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). “ The research-focused doctoral program in nursing: Pathways to excellence .” https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/News/Position-Statements/DRAFT-Research-Focused-Doctoral-Pathways-to-Excellence.pdf
• American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2018). The PhD Pathway in Nursing, Sustaining the Science Discussion Questions , https://aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/news/surveys-data/PhD-Pathway.pdf .
• American Nurses Association (ANA). (2015). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements . Silver Spring, MD: Nursesbooks.org; Retrieved from https://www.nursingworld.org/practice-policy/nursing-excellence/ethics/code-of-ethics-for-nurses/coe-view-only/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Broome ME, & Fairman J (2018). Changing the conversation about doctoral education in nursing . Nursing Outlook , 63 , 428431. 10.1016/j.outlook.2018.04.011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchanan C, Howitt ML, Wilson R, Booth RG, Risling T, & Bamford M (2020). Nursing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Protocol for a Scoping Review . JMIR research protocols , 9 ( 4 ), e17490. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.2196/17490 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buettner L, Shattell M, & Reber M (2011). Working Hard to Relax: Improving Engagement in Leisure Time Activities for a Healthier Work-Life Balance . Issues in Mental Health Nursing , 32 ( 4 ), 269–270. doi: 10.3109/01612840.2011.553346 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conn VS (2005). Editorial: Postdoctoral research preparation . Western Journal of Nursing Research , 27 ( 7 ), 799–801. 10.1177/0193945905279880 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conn VS, Zerwic J, Rawl S, Wyman JF, Larson JL, Anderson CM, … Markis NE (2014). Strategies for a successful PhD program: Words of wisdom from the WJNR editorial board . Western Journal of Nursing Research , 36 ( 1 ), 6–30. 10.1177/0193945913492144 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conn VS, Jefferson U, Cohen MZ, Anderson CM, Killion CM, & Fahrenwald NL,. (2017). Strategies to Build Authorship Competence Among PhD Students . Western journal of nursing research . 39 ( 3 ):329–55 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewa CS, Nieuwenhuijsen K, Holmes-Sullivan KJ, Singh AK, & Drakakaki G (2020). Introducing plant biology graduate students to a culture of mental well-being . Plant Direct , 4 ( 4 ). doi 10.1002/pld3.211 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dreifuerst KT, McNelis A, Weaver MT, Broome ME, Draucker C,B, & Dedko A,S (2016). Exploring the Pursuit of Doctoral Education by Nurses Seeking or Intending to Stay in Faculty Roles . Journal of Professional nursing: official journal of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing , 32 ( 3 ), 202–212. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.01.014 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunbar-Jacob J & Hravnak M. Educating PhD students in research-intensive nursing doctorate programs regarding teaching competencies . J Prof Nurs . Jan-Feb 2021; 37 ( 1 ):241–243. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.12.010. Epub 2020 Dec 23. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eleftheriades R, Fiala C, & Pasic MD (2020). The challenges and mental health issues of academic trainees . F1000Research , 9 , 104. 10.12688/f1000research.21066.1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fang Di, & Zhan Lin (2021). completion and attrition of nursing PhD students of the 2001 to 2010 matriculating cohorts . Nursing Outlook , 69 ( 3 ), 340–349. 10.1016/j.outlook.2020.12.014 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferreira LM, Furtado F, & Silveira TS (2009). Advisor-advisee relationship: the multiplier knowledge . Acta cirurgica brasileira , 24 ( 3 ), 170–172. 10.1590/s0102-86502009000300001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fierz K, Gennaro S, Dierickx K, Van Achterberg T, Morin KH, De Geest S, & Editorial Board of Journal of Nursing Scholarship. (2014). Scientific misconduct: also, an issue in nursing science? Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 46 ( 4 ), 271–280. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fowler MD (2015). Guide to the code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements: Development, interpretation, and application . Silver Spring, MD: American Nurses Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ganske KM (2010). Moral distress in academia . OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing , 15 ( 3 ). 10.3912/OJIN.Vol15No03Man06 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grace P (2018). Enhancing nurse moral agency: The leadership promise of Doctor of Nursing Practice Preparation . OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing , 23 ( 1 ). 10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No01Man04 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hafsteinsdóttir TB, van der Zwaag AM, & Schuurmans MJ (2017). Leadership mentoring in nursing research, career development and scholarly productivity: A systematic review . International Journal of Nursing Studies , 75 , 21–34. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.07.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hancock S (2021) What is known about doctoral employment? Reflections from a UK study and directions for future research , Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2020.1870027 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koh WQ, Ang F, & Casey D (2021). Impacts of Low-cost Robotic Pets for Older Adults and People with Dementia: Scoping Review . JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies , 8 ( 1 ), e25340. 10.2196/25340 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kwok R (2020). You can get that paper, thesis or grant written-with a little help . Nature , 580 ( 7801 ), 151. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lor M, Oyesanya T, Chen CX, Cherwin C, & Moon C (2019). Postdoctoral opportunities for nursing PhD graduates: A resource guide . Western Journal of Nursing Research , 41 ( 3 ), 459–476. 10.1177/0193945918775691 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macfarlane B (2010). The virtuous researcher . The Chronicle of Higher Education , 9 , A30. [ Google Scholar ]
• McAlpine L, Skakni I & Inouye K (2021) PhD careers beyond the traditional: integrating individual and structural factors for a richer account , European Journal of Higher Education , DOI: 10.1080/21568235.2020.1870242 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melnyk BM, Slevin C, Militello L, Hoying J, Teall A, & Mcgovern C (2016). Physical health, lifestyle beliefs and behaviors, and mental health of entering graduate health professional students: Evidence to support screening and early intervention . Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners , 28 ( 4 ), 204–211. doi: 10.1002/2327-6924.12350 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller JM (2012). Postdoctoral appointments: Motivations, markets, and experiences (Publication No. 3512791) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill] . ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Milliken A (2018). Ethical awareness: What it is and why it matters . OJIn: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing , 23 ( 1 ). 10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No01Man01 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris NS, Wassef ME, Sullivan-Bolyai S, Bova C, & Kane AT (2021). Making explicit the development of PhD-prepared nurses to steward the discipline . Nursing Outlook , 69 ( 1 ), 50–56. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1016/j.outlook.2020.08.002 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Postdoctoral Association. (n.d.). https://www.nationalpostdoc.org/page/Prospective_Postdocs
• NINR. (2020). Training Pathways Working Group Report . Retrieved from: https://www.ninr.nih.gov/sites/files/docs/Pathways_Report_FINAL_508c.pdf
• Nolan MT, Wenzel J, Han H-R, Allen JK, Paez KA, & Mock V (2009). Advancing a program of research within a nursing faculty role . Journal of Professional Nursing , 24 ( 6 ), 364–370. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2007.10.014 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• PérezñPinar M, & Ayerbe L (2017). Virtue ethics of clinical research . Perspectives in clinical research , 8 ( 2 ), 103. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid Ponte P, Hayman LL, Berry DL, & Cooley ME (2015). A new model for postdoctoral training: The Nursing Postdoctoral Program in Cancer and Health Disparities . Nursing Outlook , 63 ( 2 ), 189–203. 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.11.014 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Resnik DB (2012). Ethical virtues in scientific research . Accountability in research , 19 ( 6 ), 329–343. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robert N (2019). How artificial intelligence is changing nursing . Nursing management , 50 ( 9 ), 30–39. https://doi-org.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000578988.56622.21 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schrager S, & Sadowski E (2016). Getting More Done: Strategies to Increase Scholarly Productivity . Journal of graduate medical education , 8 ( 1 ), 10–13. 10.4300/JGME-D-15-00165.1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherry D, Fennessy MM, Benavente VG, Ruppar TM, & Collins EG (2013). Important considerations when applying for a postdoctoral fellowship: Postdoctoral nurse fellowship . Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 45 ( 2 ), 210–218. 10.1111/jnu.12012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith DG, & Delmore B (2007). Three Key Components to Successfully Completing a Nursing Doctoral Program . The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing , 38 ( 2 ), 76–82. doi 10.3928/00220124-20070301-01 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stott D (2019). How to improve your work–life balance . Journal of Perioperative Practice , 29 ( 7–8 ), 201–202. 10.1177/1750458919858832 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Importance of Taking a Break . (2018). Nature Microbiology , 3 ( 10 ), 1077–1077. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0269-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson HJ, Santacroce SJ, Pickler RH, Allen JK, Armer JM, Bakken SR, Bowles KH, Conley Y, Dunbar SA, Ellington LA, Grey M, Heitkemper MM, Herr KA, Lake E, McCarthy AM, Melnyk BM, Miaskowski CA, Moore SM, Naylor MD, Stone PW, Titler MG, & Weiss SJ (2020). Use of individual development plans (IDP) to foster development of nurse scientists . Nursing Outlook , 68 , 284–292. 10.1016/j.outlook.2020.01.001. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyndall DE, Flinchbaugh KB, Caswell NI & Scott ES Troublesome Knowledge for Entry-Level PhD Nursing Students: Threshold Concepts Essential for the Research-Focused Doctorate , Journal of Professional Nursing (2021), 10.1016/j.profnurs.2021.03.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ulrich CM, Wallen GR, Cui N, Chittams J, Sweet M, & Plemmons D (2015). Establishing good collaborative research practices in the responsible conduct of research in nursing science . Nursing Outlook , 63 ( 2 ), 171–180. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volkert D, Candela L, & Bernacki M (2018). Student motivation, stressors, and intent to leave nursing doctoral study A national study using path analysis . Nurse Education Today , 61 , 210–215. doi 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.11.033 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 08 April 2024

How two PhD students overcame the odds to snag tenure-track jobs

• Violeta Rodriguez 0 &
• Qimin Liu 1

Violeta Rodriguez is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Qimin Liu is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Boston University in Massachusetts.

Researching the institutions you’re applying for can help you personalize your application. Credit: Getty

Academic careers are meant to follow a set trajectory: PhD student, postdoctoral researcher, tenure-track job. But when we were thinking about what to do after our PhDs, we decided to skip the postdoc stage and go straight for tenure-track jobs owing to visa restrictions (Q.L., an international student at the time) and financial considerations (V.R., who had the looming pressure to pay student loans while supporting a family). Our mentors and peers were sceptical. A faculty member advised one of us (Q.L.) against it. Even we weren’t sure we could do it — but we did. By the end of our PhDs, we had received 15 tenure-track offers between us.

At a professional-development workshop, we were able to tell the discouraging faculty member that we would be starting our laboratories, not working as postdocs. His response — “I guess I was wrong” — was a moment of vindication for us. In proving others wrong, we had also disproved our own doubts of success.

We’ve previously shared our advice for maintaining an organized and successful job hunt . Here, we aim to demystify the interview process, showing that, even when the road seems impossible, there are routes to achieving your goals. We think that, with determination, support and a clear understanding of one’s values and goals, the academic-job market can be navigated successfully, even for those who, like us, choose to forgo the typical postdoc route.

Divas, captains, ghosts, ants and bumble-bees: collaborator attitudes explained

PhD students aspiring to tenure-track positions must recognize that, beyond the standard interview preparation, you should have a good record of research. We were unusual PhD graduates: by the time V.R. applied, she had published about 90 peer-reviewed papers after working full-time as a data analyst before starting her PhD (she also worked part-time during the PhD). In addition, V.R. had received several nationally competitive awards and fellowships. Q.L. had published more than 25 peer-reviewed papers, released 2 software packages (with more than 30,000 downloads), developed 3 web apps for statistical analysis and received prestigious research awards and funding.

Both of us also had master’s degrees in quantitative methods.

We aim to demystify the pre-interview screening and on-campus interviews. Interviewing can be nerve-wracking, and so we provide practical advice and insights on the basis of our personal experiences.

Research the institutions, departments and locations

Before a prescreening interview, do your homework on the institutions and departments. Familiarize yourself with faculty members and their research. Identify centres and institutes that complement your work and early-career programmes that would help you as you launch your career. Also, research the location and be ready to answer questions about why you want to live there. For example, we noticed that interviews were more likely to come from universities in states that we already had ties to — by having studied there or having lived in a nearby state. Personal motivations might make or break an interview; because faculty searches are costly, the search committee might take into consideration the likelihood of you coming to, living in and staying around the area.

People, passion, publishable: an early-career researcher’s checklist for prioritizing projects

Don’t start your job talk from scratch

Job talks are central to the faculty job search. The talk typically summarizes the core themes of your research and discusses your published, ongoing and future work as a cohesive and engaging narrative. At the end of the talk, you should have convinced the department that your work is important and fundable, that you will thrive at their institution, that you would be a great fit as a colleague and that you can teach students. Using materials from previous talks can ensure that you are familiar with the details, help you to feel more at ease and hopefully allow you to discuss your work more confidently. V. R. used some of her slides from talks she gave for her master’s degree, qualifying exams and dissertation proposal. Q.L. made slides from past posters and presentations that had already been refined and rehearsed.

Anticipate common interview questions

Prepare for a range of interview questions, and have a cohesive story ready about your research and why moving to that institution fits with your future research. In first-round online screening interviews, it was common to get questions about our teaching philosophy, future goals and fit with the department as well as why we would want to live in that particular location. We received fewer questions than we expected during in-person interviews; those were more about allowing us to ask questions about the department, culture, institution and what it’s like living in the area. We both had lists of questions that we asked depending on whether we were talking to, students or faculty members (junior, senior, out-of-area or teaching).

Demonstrate enthusiasm and engagement

Show genuine enthusiasm for the position and the opportunity to contribute to the institution’s academic community, both ahead of and during an interview. Engage with the interviewers by asking thoughtful questions about their research, departmental culture, teaching or the resources available. This demonstrates your interest in becoming an active and valued member of the department. Many in-person interviews involved one-on-one discussions with faculty members, as well as group interviews with students. V.R. learnt the hard way that yes, some might even ask inappropriate, and sometimes illegal, questions — on topics such as age, marriage or children. It’s helpful to have prepared answers, or deflections, for such questions.

Violeta Rodriguez is now a tenure-track assistant professor. Credit: Violeta Rodriguez

Prepare for on-campus interviews

If you progress to the on-campus interview stage, prepare extensively by reviewing the itinerary, schedules and departmental expectations. Plan interactive and engaging research and teaching presentations tailored to the specific audience, showcasing your ability to communicate complex ideas effectively. Bring a notebook or tablet to write questions and answers to consider if you get an offer. Have your travel bags ready, because interview offers might come with little notice.

Prepare to be tired

Our interviews generally lasted one or two days. There is talking, walking and eating! Even when you are excited about a particular interview, the process can take a toll on you. If you can, schedule some rest time, and wear professional but comfortable clothes and shoes during interview days.

A year in the life: what I learnt from using a time-tracking spreadsheet

Negotiate job offers effectively

If you receive job offers, you must negotiate effectively to secure the best possible terms. Look up salary expectations and the cost of living in the area to inform your negotiation. Consider negotiating not only the financial aspects, but also your teaching load, research support, start-up funds and professional-development opportunities. Communicate your needs and expectations while remaining professional and open to a collaborative negotiation process. Be ready to negotiate over the phone or through e-mail.

Leverage multiple offers

If, like we did, you find yourself with multiple job offers, it’s essential to understand that each offer can serve as leverage in negotiations. Sharing — without fully disclosing the names of the places where you have other opportunities — can prompt institutions to improve their offers. Approach this carefully, ensuring that you communicate in a way that is professional and not confrontational. Express enthusiasm for each opportunity while highlighting your desire to make the best decision on the basis of a comprehensive evaluation of all offers. We used these negotiations as opportunities to find the institutions that would best support our research.

Three actions PhD-holders should take to land their next job

Seek guidance and support

Throughout the job-search process, seek guidance and support from mentors, faculty advisers or career consultants. They can provide valuable insights, review your negotiation strategies and offer advice from their own experiences. When considering benefits across multiple institutions, such as health insurance and retirement plans, we consulted financial advisers to determine our best paths.

Overall, we think that, with a strategic, personalized approach, complemented by a willingness to learn from each experience, PhD students can enhance their appeal to hiring committees, turning the daunting journey towards tenure-track positions into a series of informed, strategic steps. And if you can find a friend during this process, as we found in each other — to vent to, compare notes with, talk you out of your moments of self-doubt and offer encouragement — consider yourself extra lucky!

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01047-y

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged .

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Related Articles

Focus on Peer Review

• Research management

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

Ready or not, AI is coming to science education — and students have opinions

Career Feature 08 APR 24

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Career Column 08 APR 24

Brazil’s postgraduate funding model is about rectifying past inequalities

Correspondence 09 APR 24

Declining postdoc numbers threaten the future of US life science

Adopt universal standards for study adaptation to boost health, education and social-science research

Correspondence 02 APR 24

How can we make PhD training fit for the modern world? Broaden its philosophical foundations

Postdoctoral Associate- Endometriosis

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics

Located in the beautiful coastal city of Dalian, surrounded by mountains and sea, DICP seeks all talents from around the globe.

Dalian, Liaoning, China

The Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics (DICP)

Postdoctoral Research Associate

Qualifications: PhD degree in chemistry, radiochemistry, or nuclear medicine technology with at least 3 years of PET radiochemistry work experience i

Charlottesville, Virginia

University of Virginia Health

Postdoctoral Associate

Palm Beach, Florida

University of Florida, Scripps Institute

Laboratory Director

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

U.S. News & World Report Ranks UH Graduate Programs Among Nation’s Best in 2024

Four UH Graduate Programs Rank in Top 10, 17 in Top 50

By Shawn Lindsey — 713-743-5725

• University and Campus
• Student, Faculty and Staff Success

The University of Houston is once again proving that it is a powerhouse in graduate education, with 13 of its programs securing spots among the top 50 nationwide in the 2024 U.S. News & World Report graduate program rankings, released today. Three engineering programs maintain their top 50 rank pending the release of 2024 engineering rankings, which have been delayed. In total, UH has 17 programs in the top 50.

A total of four UH graduate programs rank in the top 10 nationwide, including three from the UH Law Center: Health Care Law (No. 7), Part-Time Law (No. 8) and Intellectual Property Law (No. 8). The Petroleum Engineering program in the Cullen College of Engineering maintains its No. 9 ranking pending forthcoming rankings in the discipline. Since 2020, UH has seen a 70% increase in the number of graduate programs earning a top 50 ranking.

“Being acknowledged among the nation's top performers in these vital fields is truly gratifying and affirms the national prestige of these programs and the caliber of faculty, staff and students,” said Diane Z. Chase, UH senior vice president for academic affairs and provost.  “Delivering top-tier professional and graduate programs and positioning students for success in their respective fields of graduate study is integral to our vision of ascending as a top 50 public university.”

This year, seven UH Law Center specialty programs are ranked among the Top 50 in the country, with three ranked No. 1 in the state of Texas.

Top 50 Ranked UH Graduate Programs Nationwide:

• Health Care Law (No. 7)
• Part-Time Law (No. 8)
• Intellectual Property Law (No. 8)
• Petroleum Engineering (No. 9)*
• Trial Advocacy (No. 13)
• Online Overall Graduate Education Program (No. 14)
• Legal Writing (No. 16)
• Environmental Law (No. 30)
• Tax Law (No. 32)
• Chemical Engineering (No. 34)*
• International Law (No. 38)
• Pharmacy (No. 41)
• Dispute Resolution Law (No. 42)
• Business Part-Time MBA (No. 45)
• Speech-Language Pathology (No. 44)
• Industrial Manufacturing (No. 50)*
• Political Science (No. 50)**

*2023 ranking; U.S. News has delayed 2024 engineering program rankings

**discipline not ranked in 2024 but maintains a previous top 50 ranking

Each year, U.S. News ranks professional school programs in business, education, engineering, law, medicine, and nursing, including specialties in each area. The rankings are based on enrollment numbers, job placement rates, faculty statistics, and other essential quality indicators designed to help prospective students make informed decisions.

“Deciding where to attend graduate school can be formidable, considering the wealth of schools with distinctive and quality programs,” said LaMont Jones, Ed.D., managing editor for Education at U.S. News. “The Best Graduate Schools rankings and related content empower prospective students to choose the best fi t for their educational needs and ultimately achieve career success.”

The top programs in the nation earn “best of” recognition by U.S. News. UH made the following 2024 graduate program lists:

• Best Business Schools
• Best Health Schools
• Best Public Affairs Schools
• Best Science Schools
• Best Law Schools
• Best Education Schools

To see all of the graduate program rankings, or to learn more about the ranking methodology, visit the  U.S. News & World Report website .

Top Stories

April 09, 2024

March 29, 2024

Three Renowned Argonne Scientists Accept Joint Appointments at the University of Houston

Three top researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory have accepted joint appointments in various capacities at the University of Houston. This strategic collaboration furthers critical research efforts, public-private partnerships and educational opportunities for students.

• Science, Energy and Innovation

March 28, 2024

Predicting Weight Gain in Children Using Second Generation Anti-Psychotic Medication

Research from the University of Houston College of Pharmacy indicates that preventing clinically significant weight gain in children using second-generation antipsychotic medicine may be possible.

• Health and Medicine

• People Directory
• Safety at UD

• Campus & Community
• Nation & World
• Culture & Society

2025 Best Graduate Schools

Article by UDaily Staff Photo by Evan Krape April 09, 2024

UD programs remain among the best in the nation, according to U.S. News and World Report

In the 2025 edition of Best Graduate Schools , U.S. News and World Report ranked the University of Delaware's graduate programs among the best in the nation.

“As we continue to enhance and expand our excellent graduate programs to meet the needs of our students and society, it is gratifying to see the expertise and hard work of our faculty and staff nationally recognized,” said UD President Dennis Assanis. “We are proud of the positive impact that our graduate students are making on the world, and we look forward to even greater successes ahead empowered by their UD education.”     

UD’s consistently top-ranked physical therapy program remained in the top three nationwide. This is the first year U.S. News and World Report ranked speech-language pathology programs with UD’s inaugural ranking at #32.

“Excellent graduate preparation is central to the University of Delaware's mission as a world-class research institution," said Louis Rossi, dean of UD’s Graduate College and vice provost for graduate and professional education. "Our graduate programs are producing the thinkers, leaders and innovators who are tackling the world's greatest challenges. We are excited about these rankings, which indicate their excellence."

Physical Therapy, 2

Non-profit Management, 16 (up from 23)

Public Management and Leadership, 18 (up from 23)

Public Finance and Budgeting, 21

Speech-Language Pathology, 32

Education Schools, 34

Public Affairs Schools, 34

Computer Science, 70 (up from 77)

Nursing: Master's, 79 (up from 82)

Nursing: Doctor of Nursing Practice, 110

Part-Time MBA, 150

The preceding list only includes subject areas evaluated in this year's edition published to date. U.S. News and World Report has delayed the announcement of two programs that were slated to be included in the rankings: Best Engineering Schools and Programs, and Best Clinical Psychology Programs. The lists will be updated as soon as the data are available.

Other UD graduate programs have been ranked in previous years. The full listing of UD graduate programs ranked by U.S. News and World Report is available on the Institutional Research and Effectiveness Rankings  webpage . Please note the programs and specialties used by U.S. News might vary slightly from the names of degree programs used by UD.

More Campus & Community Stories

Summer session registration is open.

April 09, 2024

Article by Jamie Washington

UD Board of Trustees holds special meeting

April 08, 2024

Article by Amy Wolf and Mike Chalmers

Advancing the arts

Article by Megan M.F. Everhart

See More Stories

Subscribe to UDaily >

Have a udaily story idea.

Contact us at [email protected]

Members of the press

Contact us at 302-831-NEWS or visit the Media Relations website

ADVERTISEMENT

• Campus & Community
• Nation & World
• Culture & Society
• UD Magazine
• In Memoriam
• Media Experts

Office of Communications & Marketing 105 E. Main St. Newark, DE 19716   [email protected] Phone: 302-831-2792