Rethinking four-year PhD timelines

English only

Marie Skłodowska Curie earned her PhD at 35. She began her research at the University of Paris in 1897 and defended her dissertation six years later. Had she been forced to finish within a rigid four-year deadline, the world might have lost one of its greatest scientific pioneers.

Today, many universities and research centres expect all PhD candidates, regardless of their discipline or research type, to finish within four years. This ‘one-size-fits-all model’ assumes that all research can be planned, executed, and completed on the same timeline. Whether a student is conducting complex lab experiments or analysing abstract theories in philosophy, they are often held to the same rigid standard. But is this model genuinely achievable, especially without adequate funding, flexibility, or institutional support?

Different fields demand different approaches and timelines. Experimental sciences, for example, often involve designing and refining protocols, collecting and validating data, troubleshooting failures, and publishing results, sometimes multiple times. In contrast, theoretical research may follow a more manageable path, often with fewer logistical hurdles and time pressure. However, both are subject to the same clock. When universities and funding agencies ignore these differences, they risk creating an environment that pressures students to compromise on quality or well-being just to meet an arbitrary deadline.

Rather than acknowledging these structural challenges, universities often place the blame on students

This issue is further complicated by inconsistent supervision. While some supervisors offer strong guidance and mentorship, others are narrowly focused on publication output. Many students face unspoken pressure to publish, even when it is not officially required. Worse still, some supervisors lack the expertise to support their student’s topics and hesitate to involve others. This mismatch can leave PhD candidates feeling directionless, frustrated, and isolated.

Rather than acknowledging these structural challenges, universities often place the blame on students. Poor supervision, flawed hiring practices, under-resourced departments, and rigid administrative expectations are rarely scrutinized. For example, there are many cases where supervisors have a consistent record of students finishing late, yet the institutional response is silence. No one questions the hiring or support systems that allow this to continue.

These pressures can be deeply harmful, especially for those who are motivated by the spirit of academia and aspire to create social impact, rather than chasing metrics for recognition and promotion. Many feel they are constantly falling behind, particularly when comparing themselves to peers in faster-paced disciplines or institutions. The result is an unsafe academic environment, marked by stress, insecurity, and burnout.

If changing the four-year timeline or adjusting expectations is not feasible given the diversity of research paths, then universities must at least implement transparent and continuous evaluations, not of students, but of supervisors and departmental practices. Feedback from current and former PhDs would improve hiring decisions and help support supervisors who need improvement.

Until universities start viewing delays as systemic signals rather than personal failures, the four-year timeline will continue to harm both researchers and the quality of their work. We need flexible, humane timelines that reflect the diversity of academic paths and respect the purpose of research as a contribution to science and society.