PhD programs in North America vs Europe: just something to think about...

Doctor of philosophy: that title carries a lot of weight.  It speaks of years of struggle and deep thought on a very specific topic.  Within the academic community the conferral of the title implies  a certain standard and a sense that we've been through the same rigorous process and made it out the other side (or at least will, for those of us still going through the process).  

By talking to attendees of international conferences, I have reached the distinct impression that PhD programs vary incredibly - even within the same field.  Nowhere is this difference greater than the Europe/North-America divide.  

In North America, a doctorate is a nominally four year program (assuming you're in the sciences - we won't speak of the humanities where it's not unusual for some people to take seven years to finish).  This is usually after the conferral of a masters degree meaning that the typical North American Doctoral student will have spent at least five years in graduate school by the time he or she finishes.  

By contrast, many European programs offer three year PhD's.  Undergraduates apply to these programs with an honours degree which is recognized in Europe as a higher degree - perhaps equivalent to a masters degree, and are normally directly enrolled into the PhD program.

Across the Atlantic, there is an average difference of two years between comparable PhD programs - where does this difference originate from?

First the obvious: whereas honours bachelors degrees are almost industry standard in North America (associates degrees of three years are almost unheard of), these degrees appear to carry more weight in Europe and allow students to bypass the equivalent of a North American master's degree.  

Many European graduate programs also do not require their students to take coursework.  By contrast, classes form the majority of the first two years of a North American graduate student's program.  The classes exist to provide a standard of knowledge that the university ensures, but many of them can feel like a series of administrative hoops that just need getting through - they certainly slow down the research process, and for my part, I can count on  two fingers the courses that I actually feel I benefited from taking.  

Add to this the fact that much of the funding package for North American students is made up of mandatory teaching / research assistant duties which can take up one to two days out of every week after accounting for office hours, marking, invigilating exams and responding to students's emails.  

Don't misunderstand me - I love teaching, it's one of experiences I treasure most about my time in graduate school, but it is a time-sink.

So there you have it (the simplified version in any case).  At the end of each program, students will be expected to produce a substantial and novel body of work which they defend to earn the title of PhD.  The European model does however seem more streamlined and focuses on the core nature of what the degree recognizes - that is the body of research a candidate is building.  The North American programs by contrast add a few more hoops along the way.  Not that this a bad thing necessarily - North American students will have garnered valuable teaching experience and perhaps a slightly broader perspective than their European peers.  

That said though, the end goal for all is the degree, and I can't help but think that prolonging the process doesn't benefit the student as much as as the institution where they work.