Completing a PhD in three or four years: A false economy?

As a dean and professor, I understand the pressure universities face to produce more PhD graduates, and to do it quickly. South Africa needs more people with high-level research skills if we’re going to meet the goals set out in the National Development Plan 2030 and grow a knowledge-based economy.

The current system encourages faster completions, with national funding bodies, research councils and university subsidy models all geared toward shorter timelines. A PhD completed in three to four years is seen as efficient, affordable and internationally competitive.

But I’m also a coach and mentor. Over the years, I’ve had conversations with dozens – possibly hundreds – of PhD graduates across the country. Their stories often have a similar thread: they completed their degrees, but left feeling unprepared. Many finish their studies having never taught a class, managed a budget, written a grant, or worked across disciplines. They had their doctorates, but still didn’t feel ready.

That’s where I find myself conflicted. On one hand, I understand the need to push for numbers. On the other, I’ve seen first-hand where we might be getting it wrong.

Time vs quality?

The Council on Higher Education, a statutory body advising the higher education minister on policy, reports that most PhD candidates in South Africa take just under five years to complete. Yet the pressure to finish in three or four years keeps growing. Why? Because that’s the funding window offered by most research councils. And universities earn their subsidy only when the qualification is officially awarded – so, the sooner that happens, the better it looks on paper.

But here’s the problem: in chasing quicker completions, we risk sacrificing the quality and readiness of our graduates.

This is especially true in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) research fields, where most of my academic work has been.

Students in these fields are usually part of research teams, juggling lab work, experiments, data analysis, co-authorships, and sometimes tutoring. They gain deep knowledge in a specific area.

But we don’t always teach them how to lead a project, manage a research budget, supervise others, or collaborate across disciplines. When they graduate, we expect them to immediately take on teaching and leadership roles – yet many have never been shown how.

PhDs ‘widely misunderstood’ outside academia

And the gap doesn’t end in academia. Outside the university system, PhDs are still widely misunderstood.

In South Africa, we often hear the term ‘overqualified’ tossed around when a PhD holder applies for a job in industry. But, what that really means is: “We don’t know how to use your skills.”

In other parts of the world, PhDs are brought into companies to lead innovation, manage complex problems, and guide strategic planning. Locally, we still tend to associate the degree with a purely academic path.

To be fair, universities are also to blame. Too often, our PhD programmes are designed in isolation, without input from industry or government. We focus on producing a strong thesis, and then assume the rest will fall into place. It doesn’t.

So we end up with highly specialised graduates who are brilliant researchers, but who may not be ready to teach, lead, or apply their skills outside of academia. And that’s a real loss.

It’s worth pointing out that these issues aren’t the same across all disciplines. In mathematics and computer science, for example, the transition into industry is often smoother. The work tends to be more individual, and the market has a clearer understanding of the skills involved.

But, in fields like the natural sciences, where research often takes place in teams and labs, and where interdisciplinary collaboration is key, these gaps are harder to ignore.

‘Rethink what success looks like’

So what can we do differently?

First, we need to rethink what success looks like. Time to completion is important, but it shouldn’t be the only measure. What if we asked: What kind of graduate are we producing? Can they supervise? Can they teach? Can they write a proposal or lead a team?

Second, we should accept that not every PhD graduate wants to stay in academia. Some want to go into business, policymaking, or the non-profit sector. And that’s great – if we give them the tools to do so. This means offering different tracks within the PhD: some more research-focused, others geared toward real-world application.

And, finally, we need to build stronger partnerships outside the university. Industry, government, and civil society should be part of shaping what a PhD looks like – because they’re part of where our graduates go.

I’m not saying we should slow everything down. Efficiency has its place. But if we’re producing graduates who are technically brilliant yet practically underprepared, then we need to ask ourselves: What are we really achieving?

Are we creating researchers who can only do research? Or are we developing professionals who can teach, lead, and drive change in society?

If we want our PhD graduates to help shape South Africa’s future, we need to prepare them for more than just writing a thesis. We need to equip them for the world they’re about to step into.

Professor Burtram C Fielding is dean of the faculty of science at Stellenbosch University, South Africa.