Quote:
|
Originally Posted by molliebatmit For PhD programs (mostly science), it's not a great thing, because they care most strongly about your research experience and professor recommendations, and it's tough to get as much experience in three years as most people take four years to get. |
I will be graduating in three years, and getting plenty of research experience & three great recommendations was anything but difficult. When you plan to graduate in three years, you're not taking different classes from the four-year students -- you're just taking them earlier in your college career, so why would a three-year student have less access to professors? If anything, the three-year track impressed my recommenders. One of them only did three years himself, so he was especially gung-ho about it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by molliebatmit So in the sciences, the best path might be to graduate in three years, then continue working as a research technician (perhaps with your UROP lab) for a fourth year, then apply to PhD programs. |
Unless you're not completely set on going to grad school yet, I've heard pretty universally that this is not a good idea anymore. Grad schools liked seeing dedication to research through a tech position back in the 90s (and earlier), but nowadays not so much. Given the time it takes to complete a PhD has increased drastically from the olden days, too, I think the consensus is that starting sooner is better. All the techs I know are working as techs precisely because they are NOT sure whether grad school is for them.