average age phd student usa

• Society ›

Education & Science

Industry-specific and extensively researched technical data (partially from exclusive partnerships). A paid subscription is required for full access.

Age distribution of doctorate recipients U.S. 2021

Distribution of doctorate recipients in the united states in 2021, by age group.

• Immediate access to 1m+ statistics
• Incl. source references
• Download as PNG, PDF, XLS, PPT

Additional Information

Show sources information Show publisher information Use Ask Statista Research Service

October 2022

United States

Other statistics on the topic

College enrollment in public and private institutions in the U.S. 1965-2031

U.S. 20 richest colleges in the U.S. FY 2022

Educational attainment in the U.S. 1960-2022

Undergraduate enrollment in the U.S. 1970-2031, by gender

To download this statistic in XLS format you need a Statista Account

To download this statistic in PNG format you need a Statista Account

To download this statistic in PDF format you need a Statista Account

To download this statistic in PPT format you need a Statista Account

As a Premium user you get access to the detailed source references and background information about this statistic.

As a Premium user you get access to background information and details about the release of this statistic.

As soon as this statistic is updated, you will immediately be notified via e-mail.

… to incorporate the statistic into your presentation at any time.

You need at least a Starter Account to use this feature.

• Immediate access to statistics, forecasts & reports
• Usage and publication rights
• Download in various formats

You only have access to basic statistics. This statistic is not included in your account.

• Instant access  to 1m statistics
• Download  in XLS, PDF & PNG format
• Detailed  references

Business Solutions including all features.

Other statistics that may interest you

• Doctorate recipient numbers in the U.S. 2021, by ethnicity
• Share of doctorate recipients U.S. 2021, by parent's education level
• Primary sources of financial support for U.S. doctorate recipients 2021
• Median years to complete a doctorate U.S. 1995-2021
• Doctorate recipient numbers U.S. 2021, by major field of study
• Doctorate recipient numbers U.S. 2021, by gender and field of study
• Doctorate recipient numbers U.S. 2021, by field of study
• Share of college students 2009, by degree attainment and degree completion status
• Breakdown of educational attainment in the U.S. by Latino origin group 2013
• Bachelor's degrees earned in the United States by ethnic group 2020/21
• International students in the U.S. 2004-2023, by academic level
• Temporary visa holders completing U.S. doctorates 2021, by country of origin
• Number of engineering and science doctorate recipients U.S. 1957-2021
• Doctoral degrees earned in the United States 2020/21, by ethnicity
• Bachelor's degrees earned in the United States 2020/21, by field of research
• Master's degrees earned in the United States 2020/21, by field of research
• Doctoral degrees earned in the United States 2020/21, by field of research
• Master's degrees earned in the United States 2020/21, by ethnicity
• Percentage of U.S. students with student loans 2020/21, by institution type
• Share of students receiving student aid in the U.S. 2020-2021, by type of aid
• How university students paid for their degree in the United States 2012
• Contribution of college education to graduates' skill development in the U.S. 2012
• Employer recruitment strategies for business school graduates in 2012
• Recruitment process: availablity of graduates in the U.S. 2012, by job category
• HR managers on why graduates have an advantage in the U.S. job market in 2012
• HR managers on why graduates are disadvantaged in the U.S. job market in 2012
• Hiring rate of graduates and postgraduates in the U.S. from 2010-2012
• Work/study situation of recent graduates in the U.S. 2012
• U.S. university graduates median starting salaries 2012, various categories
• Number of postgraduate qualifications obtained UK 2000-2022
• Tuition fee for international undergraduate students in Canada 2023, by study field
• Undergrad degree holders in Andhra Pradesh India 2020, by gender
• Number of college and university graduates in China 2012-2022
• Number of doctorate degrees in Norway 2022, by field of study
• Colombia: number of university graduates 2010-2013, by study area
• Argentina: number of university graduates 2007-2014
• South Africa: university/college graduates 2015, by field of study and degree type
• Share of engineering graduate employment in MENA by sector 2016
• Student loan cohort default rate in the U.S. 2019, by institution type
• Post-baccalaureate enrollment numbers U.S. 1976-2031, by gender
• Post-baccalaureate enrollment U.S. 1976-2031, by attendance type
• Tuition cost and student loan amounts U.S. 2021/22, by institution type
• Share of children under 18 in the U.S. 2021, by ethnicity and parents education
• Tuition costs and student loans at U.S. 2-year institutions by institution type 2022
• Undergraduate enrollment in 2-year colleges U.S. 2021, by ethnicity
• Enrollment/projections in U.S. 2-year postsecondary institutions 1970-2031, by gender
• Post-baccalaureate enrollment numbers U.S. 1976-2021, by ethnicity
• Number of Bachelor's degree recipients U.S. 1869/70-2031/32

Other statistics that may interest you Statistics on

About the industry

• Basic Statistic Doctorate recipient numbers in the U.S. 2021, by ethnicity
• Premium Statistic Share of doctorate recipients U.S. 2021, by parent's education level
• Premium Statistic Primary sources of financial support for U.S. doctorate recipients 2021
• Premium Statistic Median years to complete a doctorate U.S. 1995-2021
• Premium Statistic Doctorate recipient numbers U.S. 2021, by major field of study
• Premium Statistic Doctorate recipient numbers U.S. 2021, by gender and field of study
• Premium Statistic Doctorate recipient numbers U.S. 2021, by field of study
• Basic Statistic Share of college students 2009, by degree attainment and degree completion status
• Basic Statistic Breakdown of educational attainment in the U.S. by Latino origin group 2013
• Basic Statistic Bachelor's degrees earned in the United States by ethnic group 2020/21

About the region

• Basic Statistic International students in the U.S. 2004-2023, by academic level
• Basic Statistic Temporary visa holders completing U.S. doctorates 2021, by country of origin
• Premium Statistic Number of engineering and science doctorate recipients U.S. 1957-2021
• Basic Statistic Doctoral degrees earned in the United States 2020/21, by ethnicity
• Basic Statistic Bachelor's degrees earned in the United States 2020/21, by field of research
• Basic Statistic Master's degrees earned in the United States 2020/21, by field of research
• Basic Statistic Doctoral degrees earned in the United States 2020/21, by field of research
• Basic Statistic Master's degrees earned in the United States 2020/21, by ethnicity
• Basic Statistic Percentage of U.S. students with student loans 2020/21, by institution type
• Basic Statistic Share of students receiving student aid in the U.S. 2020-2021, by type of aid

Selected statistics

• Basic Statistic How university students paid for their degree in the United States 2012
• Basic Statistic Contribution of college education to graduates' skill development in the U.S. 2012
• Premium Statistic Employer recruitment strategies for business school graduates in 2012
• Premium Statistic Recruitment process: availablity of graduates in the U.S. 2012, by job category
• Premium Statistic HR managers on why graduates have an advantage in the U.S. job market in 2012
• Premium Statistic HR managers on why graduates are disadvantaged in the U.S. job market in 2012
• Premium Statistic Hiring rate of graduates and postgraduates in the U.S. from 2010-2012
• Basic Statistic Work/study situation of recent graduates in the U.S. 2012
• Basic Statistic U.S. university graduates median starting salaries 2012, various categories

Other regions

• Premium Statistic Number of postgraduate qualifications obtained UK 2000-2022
• Basic Statistic Tuition fee for international undergraduate students in Canada 2023, by study field
• Basic Statistic Undergrad degree holders in Andhra Pradesh India 2020, by gender
• Premium Statistic Number of college and university graduates in China 2012-2022
• Premium Statistic Number of doctorate degrees in Norway 2022, by field of study
• Premium Statistic Colombia: number of university graduates 2010-2013, by study area
• Premium Statistic Argentina: number of university graduates 2007-2014
• Basic Statistic South Africa: university/college graduates 2015, by field of study and degree type
• Premium Statistic Share of engineering graduate employment in MENA by sector 2016

Related statistics

• Basic Statistic Student loan cohort default rate in the U.S. 2019, by institution type
• Basic Statistic Post-baccalaureate enrollment numbers U.S. 1976-2031, by gender
• Basic Statistic Post-baccalaureate enrollment U.S. 1976-2031, by attendance type
• Basic Statistic Tuition cost and student loan amounts U.S. 2021/22, by institution type
• Basic Statistic Share of children under 18 in the U.S. 2021, by ethnicity and parents education
• Premium Statistic Tuition costs and student loans at U.S. 2-year institutions by institution type 2022
• Basic Statistic Undergraduate enrollment in 2-year colleges U.S. 2021, by ethnicity
• Premium Statistic Enrollment/projections in U.S. 2-year postsecondary institutions 1970-2031, by gender
• Basic Statistic Post-baccalaureate enrollment numbers U.S. 1976-2021, by ethnicity
• Basic Statistic Number of Bachelor's degree recipients U.S. 1869/70-2031/32

Further related statistics

• Basic Statistic Highest earning increase from obtaining a graduate degree in the U.S. 2013
• Basic Statistic Post-baccalaureate enrollment numbers in the U.S., by institution type 1976-2010
• Premium Statistic HR managers' evalations of online vs on-campus colleges in the U.S. in 2011
• Premium Statistic Median income of communications and journalism majors by study focus in the U.S. 2013
• Premium Statistic Median income of psychology and social work majors by study focus in the U.S. 2013
• Premium Statistic Median income of arts majors by study focus in the U.S. 2013
• Basic Statistic Percentage of U.S. population groups with a bachelor's degree, by ethnicity 2010
• Basic Statistic African-American undergraduate enrollment numbers, by gender 1976 to 2011
• Basic Statistic U.S. student loan borrowers' debt levels, private four-year colleges 2006-2022
• Premium Statistic Students' evaluation of online vs on-campus colleges in the U.S. in 2011

Further Content: You might find this interesting as well

• Highest earning increase from obtaining a graduate degree in the U.S. 2013
• Post-baccalaureate enrollment numbers in the U.S., by institution type 1976-2010
• HR managers' evalations of online vs on-campus colleges in the U.S. in 2011
• Median income of communications and journalism majors by study focus in the U.S. 2013
• Median income of psychology and social work majors by study focus in the U.S. 2013
• Median income of arts majors by study focus in the U.S. 2013
• Percentage of U.S. population groups with a bachelor's degree, by ethnicity 2010
• African-American undergraduate enrollment numbers, by gender 1976 to 2011
• U.S. student loan borrowers' debt levels, private four-year colleges 2006-2022
• Students' evaluation of online vs on-campus colleges in the U.S. in 2011

Want to Get your Dissertation Accepted?

Discover how we've helped doctoral students complete their dissertations and advance their academic careers!

Join 200+ Graduated Students

Get Your Dissertation Accepted On Your Next Submission

Get customized coaching for:.

• Crafting your proposal,
• Collecting and analyzing your data, or
• Preparing your defense.

Trapped in dissertation revisions?

Average age of a phd student: when is it too late, published by steve tippins on june 16, 2022 june 16, 2022.

Last Updated on: 2nd February 2024, 02:36 am

In 2020, the average age of a graduate from a PhD program in the United States was 33. However, 6% of the graduates were over 45. 

When people ask what the average age of a PhD student is, many times they’re really asking, “Am I too old to get a PhD?” The answer is almost always no. Let’s explore some different scenarios. 

When Is It Too Late to Get a PhD?

As an academic career coach, I’ve been asked by more than a few people if it’s too late for them to get a PhD. Some of these people were even in their twenties, worried that working for two years after their undergraduate degree had inexorably barred them from the halls of academia. 

Others were past middle age, looking for a career change. In either case, the answer is ultimately no, it’s not too late to get a PhD . However, there are some important things to keep in mind if this is something you’re considering.

Getting a PhD for Your Career

Let’s say you want to get a PhD to pursue a career in academia or elsewhere. You enter a PhD program at 25 or even 30, the average PhD duration takes six to eight years. That means you will finish when you are around 30 to 37. The normal retirement age to get Social Security in the United States is 67, so that’s at least 30 years ahead of you – lots of time for your career. If you look around academia, there’s a lot of people older than 67.

You have a chance for a very long career, even if you’re 42 and finish your PhD at 50. That’s still over 15 years before retirement age. These days, very few people stay at a job for 15 years. Rest assured that you have ample opportunity to have a meaningful career.

Over 50% of doctoral candidates don’t finish their dissertations.

Student Loan Debt Considerations

If you’re 61 and taking loans out, it will be a while before you pay those off. Debt is something to think about before getting a PhD. If you can get into a PhD program that pays your tuition or even provides you a stipend, you may be able to graduate with a much smaller student loan debt. That assistance could allow you to consider a PhD later in life. 

What Is the Minimum Age for Getting a PhD?

To get a PhD, you have to have graduated from undergraduate school. From there, some people can go right into a PhD program. If you graduate at the traditional age of 22, you’d be getting your PhD somewhere around age 25 at a minimum.

There are stories about people who graduate from high school at 12 and college at 16. They could theoretically get their PhD at 19 or 20. However, people like this are quite rare.

Can You Get a PhD by Age 25?

It is possible to get a PhD by age 25, particularly if you graduate from college at 21 or 22. If it takes three or four years to get a PhD, you could graduate by 25.

What Is The Best Age to Get a PhD?

The best age to get a PhD is three years ago. The second best time is now. In reality, the best age to get a PhD is whenever you are able to complete it. The earlier you finish your PhD, the more of a life and career you’ll have with it , but there is no optimal age.

Does Having a Master’s Shorten the Time it Takes to Get a PhD?

Having a Master’s can shorten the time it takes to get a PhD , depending on your discipline. If PhD programs in your discipline are structured such that they assume you have a Master’s before you enter, then yes, you’re going to finish a PhD faster. 

If you enter without a Master’s, you may have to get the Master’s first to be allowed in the PhD program. Otherwise, you may have to take some remedial coursework. If your discipline is not set up in that manner, having a Master’s may not allow you to move faster.

Final Thoughts

As society ages and with employers having problems finding eligible workers, the problem of ageism will become less severe. Getting a PhD at any age is going to be a viable option. If you are interested in a PhD and it’s something you have a burning desire to do, don’t let age stop you. 

Are you considering getting your PhD? We’re here to help. Check out our Dissertation Coaching and Academic Career Coaching services.

Steve Tippins

Steve Tippins, PhD, has thrived in academia for over thirty years. He continues to love teaching in addition to coaching recent PhD graduates as well as students writing their dissertations. Learn more about his dissertation coaching and career coaching services. Book a Free Consultation with Steve Tippins

Related Posts

A Professor’s Top 3 Pieces of Advice for Ph.D. Students

When it comes to getting a Ph.D., there is no one-size-fits-all approach to ensuring success in graduate school. Every student must find their own path to navigating the most rigorous academic experience that most people Read more…

PhD Stipends: All Your Questions Answered

What are PhD stipends? When you enter a PhD program, you can also get financial support in the form of tuition reduction, free tuition, and PhD stipends. That means compensation for work you’ll do, such Read more…

PhD Graduates: A Guide to Life After Your Degree

What do PhD students do after they graduate? What should they do? And what are the unexpected challenges and limitations they encounter? The first thing a PhD graduate should do is rest and gather their Read more…

Make This Your Last Round of Dissertation Revision.

Learn How to Get Your Dissertation Accepted .

Discover the 5-Step Process in this Free Webinar .

Almost there!

Please verify your email address by clicking the link in the email message we just sent to your address.

If you don't see the message within the next five minutes, be sure to check your spam folder :).

Hack Your Dissertation

5-Day Mini Course: How to Finish Faster With Less Stress

Interested in more helpful tips about improving your dissertation experience? Join our 5-day mini course by email!

Data Tables

These tables present detailed data on the demographic characteristics, educational history, sources of financial support, and postgraduation plans of doctorate recipients. The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) data tables were reorganized and renumbered in 2021; see table B-1 in the " Technical Notes " for a crosswalk of comparable 2020 and 2021 data tables. Explore SED data further via the interactive data tool and the Restricted Data Analysis System . Kelly Kang Survey Manager, SED NCSES

• All Formats (.zip 7.9 MB)
• PDF (.zip 6.8 MB)
• Excel (.zip 1.1 MB)
• MORE DOWNLOADS OPTIONS

Trends in research doctorate recipient characteristics

Trends in postgraduation commitments of research doctorate recipients, field and demographic characteristics of research doctorate recipients, financial support and education-related debt of research doctorate recipients, educational and background characteristics of research doctorate recipients, postgraduation commitments and salaries of research doctorate recipients, doctorate institutions, locations, and countries of origins of research doctorate recipients, statistical profiles of research doctorate recipients, postgraduation plans of research doctorate recipients.

Typical Graduate Student Age [Data for Average Age]

Graduate students can come straight from undergraduate study or they can be a little bit older after spending some time in industry. No matter what the subject you’ll find a wide variety of graduate student demographics and ages.

According to the OECD, the average age of master’s students is 24 and the average age of PhD entry is 27. In the US the average age of students studying for a graduate degree is 33 years old with a 22% of the graduates being over 40 years old.

In my experience, there has often been a wide variety of ages in grad school. In both my masters and my PhD years I was working alongside some mature age students. No matter the age, I enjoyed working alongside all students who were able to support each other during their studies.

If you are worried that you are too old to enter grad school and return to school, fear not.

As long as you enter your course with an apprentice mindset, do not look down on those who are younger than you, and work collaboratively you will likely have a fantastic time.

If you’d like to watch my YouTube video about this subject you can check it out in the link below.

In this article, we will look at the average age of graduate students and the data presented for master’s and PhD students by universities.

Grad Student Ages – Average ages?

According to some online sources, the average graduate student today is 33 years old, although students in doctoral programs are a bit older on average.

However, the average graduate student in the United States is typically between 22 and 28 years old. There are often 30’s and 40’s around, as well as super-brilliant under-21’s.

Some people decide to go back to university after some time in their careers because through their work or life experience they realise that they need or want an advanced degree to further their careers.

According to the data provided by Louisiana State University, the average age at which a student achieves a masters degree is of over 430 international student advising centres in more than 80 countries, the average age of a US graduate student is 31 years.

Here are some more graphs that will show you the median age of different students in a variety of institutions.

South-eastern University

Here is the distribution of students from south-eastern University in 2021 .

You’ll notice that there is a bimodal distribution. That is, a number of graduate students are between the ages of 22 and 24 but there is also a peak between 40 and 49.

This is likely due to the fact that the second peak is due to those who have entered a professional career and want a career change or to up-skill in their current role.

The University of British Columbia

The University of British Colombia in Vancouver also presented their 2022 cohort demographic statistics for Masters and PhD students between the ages of 20 and 60.

You can see the results of this in the graph below.

Age at completion of doctoral degree

Lastly, in the table below we have the median age at doctorate for a number of fields and demographic characteristics in the United States of America.

You can see that the average PhD age for completion is 31.5 in the United States. The US has a much older cohort upon completion because their degrees typically take 5 to 7 years because there is a large coursework component at the beginning of their PhD.

I graduated from my PhD when I was 25. I did my undergraduate which included a Masters year. That means my undergraduate was done in four years. Then, I moved to Australia to do a PhD as an international student which meant I needed to be finished in three years.

Therefore I did my undergraduate, masters, PhD in seven years total. That is pretty much as fast as anyone can do it.

However, it is not a race and some people benefit greatly from taking their time, doing part or all of their education part-time, or waiting until they are financially stable before returning to their studies.

Why People Wait to Get Graduate Degrees

There are a number of reasons why people wait to get graduate degrees.

For many, it’s a matter of finishing up their undergraduate degree and taking some time to transition into the workforce before then re-enrolling in a graduate program to improve skills that they can then use to access higher pay scales in their current role.

For others, it’s a question of work experience – they want to be sure they’re making the most of their time and earning potential before going back to school.

And for the majority of students, it’s simply a question of finances. College is expensive, and many students graduate with a lot of debt. Going back to school for a graduate degree can add even more debt to that total.

But there are also plenty of people who go back to school for their graduate degree right after finishing their undergraduate degree. For some, it’s a matter of getting into the program they really want or earning a higher salary. For others, it’s simply a passion for learning. Whatever the reason, there are plenty of people who choose to go back to school immediately after finishing their undergraduate degree.

Will graduate schools care how old you are?

Graduate schools may care about your age if you’re an undergrad student applying to a graduate program. Sometimes a graduate program requires some professional experience so that you can get the most out of your program.

If you have work experience, your age may not be as important to admission committees. However, if you’re exploring a new field or degree, your advisor or the admissions committee may feel that your age puts you at a disadvantage.

In science programs, for example, research experience is often a requirement for admission, and mature students may have an easier time completing this requirement. Some programs also prefer or require that their students be of a certain age range. Your advisor can tell you more about the requirements of specific programs.

Are you too old for a graduate degree?

The answer is no, you are never too old to get a graduate degree. In fact, according to National Center for Education Statistics, the average age of graduate students is 33 years old.

This means that 1 in 5 students is over the age of 40!

So don’t worry, there are plenty of people in your situation.

Just remember that grad school is not for everyone, so make sure you really think about what you want to get out of it before making a decision.

You can be any age and still get a graduate degree. There are many benefits to getting a graduate degree, such as improved job prospects and increased earnings potential. If you are thinking about going back to school, then you should definitely consider getting a graduate degree.

Wrapping up

This article has been through everything you need to know about a typical graduate student age and has presented some data for various institution’s graduate students.

Ultimately, as long as graduate school is something that you see value in and you are willing to spend the time, money, and effort in getting your next qualification it could be a valuable addition to your CV.

Dr Andrew Stapleton has a Masters and PhD in Chemistry from the UK and Australia. He has many years of research experience and has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate at a number of Universities. Although having secured funding for his own research, he left academia to help others with his YouTube channel all about the inner workings of academia and how to make it work for you.

Thank you for visiting Academia Insider.

We are here to help you navigate Academia as painlessly as possible. We are supported by our readers and by visiting you are helping us earn a small amount through ads and affiliate revenue - Thank you!

2024 © Academia Insider

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

• All previous cycle years

The SED is an annual census of research doctorate recipients from U.S. academic institutions that collects information on educational history, demographic characteristics, graduate funding source and educational debts, and postgraduation plans.

Survey Info

• tag for use when URL is provided --> Methodology
• tag for use when URL is provided --> Data
• tag for use when URL is provided --> Analysis

The Survey of Earned Doctorates is an annual census conducted since 1957 of all individuals receiving a research doctorate from an accredited U.S. institution in a given academic year. The SED is sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF) and by three other federal agencies: the National Institutes of Health, Department of Education, and National Endowment for the Humanities. The SED collects information on the doctoral recipient’s educational history, demographic characteristics, and postgraduation plans. Results are used to assess characteristics of the doctoral population and trends in doctoral education and degrees.

Areas of Interest

• STEM Education
• Innovation and Global Competitiveness

Survey Administration

The 2022 survey was conducted by RTI International under contract to NCSES.

Survey Details

Featured survey analysis.

Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2022

SED Overview

Data highlights, the number of research doctorates conferred by u.s. institutions, which began a sharp 15-month decline in spring 2020 due to the covid-19 pandemic, rebounded in 2022 with the highest number of research doctorates awarded in any academic year to date.

Over the past 20 years, most of the growth in the number of doctorates earned by both men and women has been in science and engineering (S&E) fields 

Methodology

Survey description, technical notes, technical tables, questionnaires, view archived questionnaires, featured analysis.

Research Doctorate Conferrals Rebound, Leading to Record Number of U.S. Doctorate Recipients in 2022

Related content, related collections, survey contact.

For additional information about this survey or the methodology, contact

Get e-mail updates from NCSES

NCSES is an official statistical agency. Subscribe below to receive our latest news and announcements.

So Many Papers, so Little Time

A blog about scientific publishing and academic productivity

• Paperpile News
• Productivity
• Inspiration

Are you ever too old to get a PhD?

We’ve often seen discussions on social media about whether or not you’re ever too old to get a PhD. This question, which we explore in this post, is more complicated than it immediately appears.

The median age of doctoral recipients in the US is 31.5 years.

According to the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics’ 2020 Survey of Earned Doctorates , the median age of doctoral recipients in the US across all fields (including humanities and education) is 31.5 years. Education graduates tend to be the oldest at approximately 39, while PhDs in the physical sciences tend to be around 29.

While these trends reflect the experience of the majority of PhD graduates, several recent reports by major news outlets like The New York Times, the CBC, and NPR have highlighted the stories of PhDs who received their degrees in their 60s—and even as old as 89, in the case of Manfred Steiner .

Doctoral dreams

Manfred Steiner’s circumstances, in particular, highlight the problems with assuming that it’s never too late to receive a PhD. As NPR’s article points out, Steiner had a decades-long career as a successful doctor and professor of hematology at Brown University before starting his PhD in physics.

After he retired from medicine in 2000, he began taking physics courses at MIT. Years later, he completed his physics PhD at Brown. That is, he pursued a PhD after a successful—and likely lucrative—career as a distinguished doctor at the Ivy League institution from which he retired. These facts make his advice to readers (”follow your dream”) seem rather shallow.

Late-stage PhD success stories are prime examples of the elitism of doctoral education.

Likewise, a 2016 New York Times article , chronicling Robert Hevey’s pursuit of a plant biology PhD in his 60s, notes that Hevey fulfilled his doctoral dreams after a 30-year career as a certified public accountant for “accounting firms and businesses ranging from manufacturing to enterprise software and corporate restructuring.”

In both of these instances, the recipients were already successful, high-level professionals who clearly had the time, leisure, and money to pursue a PhD in their later years. The point is that these exemplars of late-stage PhD success are prime examples of the elitism that plagues doctoral education.

Who actually gets a PhD?

Tracy Evans, who wrote about her experience obtaining a PhD at 66 in Science , confessed that she pursued a doctorate because she “needed a change.” Yet, like both Steiner and Hevey, Evans already possessed advanced degrees in other fields.

That is, all three of the highlighted individuals who pursued a PhD at a later age already demonstrated that they could succeed in a graduate program, in spite of the fact that nearly 50% of PhD students in North America drop out of their programs before completing their degrees.

Why do so many PhD students drop out? Is it because of the grueling and competitive nature of the degree? Is it the case that some simply can’t keep up?

Nearly 50% of PhD students in North America drop out of their programs.

While the rigor and intensity of doctoral programs are typically cited as reasons for the high non-completion rates of admitted students, the reality behind the statistic is more complex—a reality that the above examples of late-stage PhD recipients make excessively clear.

According to a 2022 study of the socioeconomic roots of academic faculty , “family socioeconomic status (SES) […] influences graduate school applications and admissions, as well as students’ experience once accepted” (1). The study surveyed 46,692 tenure-track faculty from over 1300 institutions across most major fields. Over 7,000 faculty members provided information about their parents’ level of education.

The authors explain that “individuals with parents who have a doctorate or professional degree are increasingly overrepresented among doctorate and professional degree holders” (2). In fact, “research on social mobility suggests that the association between parents’ SES and their children’s status is larger among post-graduate than bachelor’s degree recipients” (2).

PhD students whose parents have advanced degrees are more likely to become academic faculty.

The results of the study indicate that “across all disciplines, over half (51.8%) of faculty have at least one parent with a master’s degree or PhD” (4). Importantly, there is a strong correlation between parental education and academic support. Ultimately, this means that PhD students whose parents have advanced degrees are more likely to complete their degrees and go on to become academic faculty.

Is a PhD right at any age?

We need to get past the debilitating, unethical narrative that says PhD programs must be utterly grueling.

In the end, one’s success in a PhD program actually has almost nothing to do with age. You are never too old to get a PhD if your family’s (or your own) income or educational background position you to succeed.

The questions we should be asking are: how can we restructure PhD programs so that they provide the maximum academic, financial, and emotional support for all promising students, regardless of family SES or educational background? How can we rethink the PhD pipeline?

And, finally, how can we get past the debilitating, and frankly unethical, narrative that says that PhD programs must be utterly grueling, emotionally draining, and downright nasty at times?

Chappell, B. (2021, November 7). He always wanted a Ph.D. in physics. He finally earned it at 89.  NPR . https://www.npr.org/2021/11/07/1052005447/brown-university-89-phd-physics-dream

Employment Opportunities. (2019, November 15).  Data snapshot: Graduate students, social class, and academia’s promise . AAUP. https://www.aaup.org/article/data-snapshot-graduate-students-social-class-and-academia%E2%80%99s-promise

Evans, T. (2018, July 12). It’s never too late to stretch your wings: Why I got a Ph.D. at age 66.  Science.org . https://www.science.org/content/article/its-never-too-late-stretch-your-wings-why-i-got-phd-age-66

Kang, K. (2021).  Survey of Earned Doctorates . https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22300/data-tables

Litalien, D. (2015, May 12).  Improving PhD completion rates: where should we start?  Wiley.com. https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/writing-and-conducting-research/improving-phd-completion-rates-where-should-we-start

Miller, M. (2016, April 15). Taking on the ph.D. later in life.  The New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/your-money/taking-on-the-phd-later-in-life.html

Morgan, A., LaBerge, N., Larremore, D., Galesic, M., Brand, J. E., & Clauset, A. (2021). Socioeconomic roots of academic faculty. In  SocArXiv . https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/6wjxc

Oh, B., & Kim, C. (2020). Broken promise of college? New educational sorting mechanisms for intergenerational association in the 21st century.  Social Science Research ,  86 (102375), 102375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102375

Ziaee, D. (Last Updated: July 22 2019). Aren’t you too old for that? The late life plunge into a PhD.  CBC News . https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-october-14-2018-1.4858401/aren-t-you-too-old-for-that-the-late-life-plunge-into-a-phd-1.4858402

Brought to you by the folks at Paperpile.

We love papers so we blog about it.

136 Irving Street Cambridge, MA 02138

• The Age of New Humanities Ph.D.'s
• K - 12 Education
• Higher Education
• Funding and Research
• Public Life
• Associate’s Degrees in the Liberal Arts and Humanities
• Demographics of Associate’s Degree Recipients in the Humanities
• Bachelor’s Degrees in the Humanities
• Humanities Bachelor’s Degrees as a Second Major
• Disciplinary Distribution of Bachelor’s Degrees in the Humanities
• Institutional Distribution of Bachelor's Degrees in the Humanities
• Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Bachelor's Degrees in the Humanities
• Gender Distribution of Bachelor’s Degrees in the Humanities
• Most Frequently Taken College Courses
• Postsecondary Course-Taking in Languages Other than English
• Advanced Degrees in the Humanities
• Humanities’ Share of All Advanced Degrees Conferred
• Disciplinary Distribution of Advanced Degrees in the Humanities
• Institutional Distribution of Master’s Degrees in the Humanities
• Institutional Distribution of Doctoral Degrees in the Humanities
• Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Advanced Degrees in the Humanities
• Gender Distribution of Advanced Degrees in the Humanities
• Years to Attainment of a Humanities Doctorate
• The Relationship between Funding and Time to Ph.D.
• Paying for Doctoral Study in the Humanities
• Debt and Doctoral Study in the Humanities
• Attrition in Humanities Doctorate Programs
• The Interdisciplinary Humanities Ph.D.
• English Language and Literature Degree Completions
• Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Degrees in English Language and Literature
• Gender Distribution of Degrees in English Language and Literature
• History Degree Completions
• Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Degrees in History
• Gender Distribution of Degrees in History
• Degree Completions in Languages and Literatures Other than English
• Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Degrees in Languages and Literatures Other than English
• Gender Distribution of Degrees in Languages and Literatures Other than English
• Philosophy Degree Completions
• Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Degrees in Philosophy
• Gender Distribution of Degrees in Philosophy
• Degree Completions in the Academic Study of Religion
• Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Degrees in Religion
• Gender Distribution of Degrees in Religion
• Humanities Degree Completions: An International Comparison
• U.S. Students Pursuing Study Abroad

The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) reveals that the median age of humanities and arts students who completed a Ph.D. in 2020 was almost three years higher than for doctorate recipients in general, with a comparatively large share of older students earning the degree. This may come as little surprise, since doctoral students in the humanities and arts tend to take longer to complete a Ph.D. than their counterparts in other fields . However, the gap in age at completion is not fully explained by the difference in time to completion, as doctorate recipients in the humanities and arts spend only about one year longer in their doctoral programs than students earning a Ph.D. in other fields.

( Note: These indicators present data for Ph.D.’s in both the humanities and the arts, which the National Science Foundation’s National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics combines in its public reporting of findings from the SED. But because the humanities produce substantially more PhDs each year than the fine/performing arts , the SED provides useful insight about the state of doctoral education in the humanities.)

• The median age of new humanities and arts Ph.D.’s was 34.2 years in 2020—almost three years older than the median among new doctorate recipients generally (31.5 years; Indicator II-28a ). Only doctoral degree recipients in education had a higher median age (38.5 years).
• From 1994 to 2020, the median age of new doctoral degree recipients in all fields combined declined by 2.6 years, from 34.1 to 31.5. In the humanities and arts, the median age fell by 1.5 years, from 35.7 to 34.2—similar to every other field except education, where the median fell by more than five years (from 43.6 to 38.5).
• In the humanities and arts, 22% of new doctoral degree recipients in 2020 were age 30 or younger, as compared to 68% of the graduates in physical/earth sciences and 36% of those in the behavioral/social sciences ( Indicator II-28b ). A substantial plurality of new Ph.D.’s in the humanities and arts, 39%, were ages 31–35—the largest share in that age group for any field. Another 18% of humanities and arts Ph.D.’s were over 40. The only field with a larger share of degree recipients over 40 was education.
• Throughout the 2010–2020 time period, the median age of women earning humanities and arts Ph.D.’s was modestly lower than that of men (33.8 years versus 34.4 years in 2020; findings not visualized). Similarly, a comparison of the broad disciplinary categories within the humanities employed by the data collector 1  revealed only small differences in age at receipt of the doctorate across the ten-year period.
• 1 The compared disciplines are history, languages and literatures other than English, and “Letters.” The latter encompasses: American literature (U.S. and Canada); classics; comparative literature; creative writing; English language; English literature (British and Commonwealth); rhetoric and composition; and speech and rhetorical studies.

* Includes agricultural sciences and natural resources; biological and biomedical sciences; and health sciences. ** Includes earth, computer, and information sciences, as well as mathematics. The latter three fields were reported separately beginning in 2015.

Source: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities (Data Tables, Years 1994–2020), https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/doctorates (accessed 2/15/2022). Table numbers for years: 1994 to 1998—A-3a; 1999 to 2001, 2005—18; 2002 to 2004—17; 2006, 2008—20; 2007 (included in 2008 report)—S-20; 2009—24; and 2010 to 2020—27. Data presented by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’  Humanities  Indicators ( www.humanitiesindicators.org ).

The data on which this indicator is based are collected as part of the federal Survey of Earned Doctorates , a national census of recently graduated doctorate recipients.

For additional indicators related to the completion of a doctorate in the humanities, see “Debt and Doctoral Study in the Humanities,” “Years to Attainment of a Humanities Doctorate,”   “Paying for Doctoral Study in the Humanities,” and “Attrition in Humanities Doctorate Programs.”

For trends in the number of doctorate completions in the humanities, see “Advanced Degrees in the Humanities.”

* Includes agricultural sciences and natural resources; biological and biomedical sciences; and health sciences.

Source: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Earned Doctorates (custom tabulation prepared for the Humanities Indicators by RTI in November 2021). Data presented by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’  Humanities  Indicators ( www.humanitiesindicators.org ).

Our Services

College Admissions Counseling

UK University Admissions Counseling

EU University Admissions Counseling

College Athletic Recruitment

Crimson Rise: College Prep for Middle Schoolers

Indigo Research: Online Research Opportunities for High Schoolers

Delta Institute: Work Experience Programs For High Schoolers

Graduate School Admissions Counseling

Private Boarding & Day School Admissions

Online Tutoring

Essay Review

Financial Aid & Merit Scholarships

Our Leaders and Counselors

Our Student Success

Crimson Student Alumni

Our Reviews

Our Scholarships

Careers at Crimson

University Profiles

US College Admissions Calculator

GPA Calculator

Practice Standardized Tests

SAT Practice Test

ACT Practice Tests

Personal Essay Topic Generator

eBooks and Infographics

Crimson YouTube Channel

Summer Apply - Best Summer Programs

Top of the Class Podcast

ACCEPTED! Book by Jamie Beaton

Crimson Global Academy

+1 (646) 419-3178

Go back to all articles

Am I Too Old for a Graduate Degree? Returning to School Later in Life.

If you’re wondering whether it’s unduly challenging to return to school later in life, this isn’t necessarily the case. In the US, the average age of students studying for a graduate degree is 33 years old, with 22% of graduates being over 40 years old, and 8% being over 50. But what’s the “optimal” age to pursue a graduate degree? Let’s take a look at some factors.

The Benefits of Gaining Work Experience First

Whilst many students come straight out of an undergraduate degree and decide to continue to graduate level immediately, there are many benefits of waiting a little before embarking on further study. The first is getting a foothold in the workplace. Indeed, some employers will pay for their employees to go back to university on a part-time basis in order to enhance their skillsets and then bring their newly found expertise back to the workplace.

Emotionally, students who have spent time in the workplace often find they appreciate their graduate education at a deeper level and can apply it more practically. And financially, the rising cost of education and graduate programs means that mature students are sometimes better able to afford graduate studies and avoid debt than students attending straight out of an undergraduate program.

Life Experience Helps

Being a mature student can be advantageous to your own learning journey, as you already have life experience and have matured as a human being, with greater awareness of the best conditions which enable you to study effectively. It is likely that that you will have developed stronger communication skills, which will help with interacting with your peers and the teaching staff. You will also likely be more sure that the course of study you have chosen is right for you, spending your time dedicated to maximizing your experience and grades!

I embarked on my Masters program at the age of 30, although the majority of my peers were straight out of undergraduate programs, it did not deter me from making friends with them and admiring their enthusiasm and energy to learn new concepts. There were 4 of us in a cohort of 44 students who were classified as “mature students,” and we all graduated with the highest grades in the course. I believe this was because of the investment we had made at a much later stage in our lives. Some of us had completely changed career paths: one peer even had a PhD in an unrelated subject and had decided to retrain in our current field.

Balancing Work, Family and Study

Balancing the intensity of a graduate degree with other commitments is more challenging as a mature student. You may already have a family or  work part-time. On the flip side, you may be retired and choose to embark upon further study purely for interest and enjoyment: what a luxury!

I now teach colleagues in a Masters program who are also working full-time. Their dedication to learning in the program is apparent, and their level of engagement and interaction with their peers and the teaching team is markedly higher than with undergraduates due to the conscious investment they have made to integrate graduate study with their already busy work lives. They can see how the course benefits them in their work directly, which in turn benefits the institutions they work in, in a positive feedback cycle.

Fatigue, Isolation and Burnout

Learner fatigue is not uncommon for younger students who have been studying consistently since childhood: the long-term pressure and occasionally the transition to self-directed, autonomous learning in a graduate program can leave them susceptible to academic burnout. With the pandemic, academic burnout has been exacerbated, and a recent survey has shown that almost three-quarters of students do not feel that their university provides enough mental health support.

Mature learners, on the other hand, often have greater capacity to deal with an intensive, self-driven learning environment, having already learned to manage successful careers. They know how to budget their time, manage their mental space, and work smarter. While the return to higher education can prove a mental challenge after being away and take some time to re-adapt, older students have an emotional maturity that can’t be be developed except with time.

Special Considerations

When you apply for a graduate degree as a mature student, your application may also be given special consideration as some institutions have flexible requirements. As the University of Essex points out , you have the advantage of being able to include work experience, training and overall life experience in your application which younger students will not have.

In conclusion, no age is too old to get a graduate degree. There are so many advantages in waiting a while for further study that you may even choose to become a lifelong learner!

Dr. Amrit Dencer-Brown Lecturer in Academic Practice

More Articles

How to show intellectual curiosity on your top college application.

Best Senior Project Ideas for High School Students + 42 Real Student Examples

What Do Top Colleges Look For? Exclusive Insights From A Former Admissions Officer

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
• JCI Insight
• v.7(6); 2022 Mar 22

Gaps between college and starting an MD-PhD program are adding years to physician-scientist training time

Lawrence f. brass.

1 Department of Medicine, Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, and MD-PhD program, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Reiko Maki Fitzsimonds

2 Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology and MD-PhD program, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Myles H. Akabas

3 Departments of Physiology and Biophysics, Neuroscience, and Medicine and MD-PhD program, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.

Associated Data

The average age when physician-scientists begin their career has been rising. Here, we focused on one contributor to this change: the increasingly common decision by candidates to postpone applying to MD-PhD programs until after college. This creates a time gap between college and medical school. Data were obtained from 3544 trainees in 73 programs, 72 program directors, and AAMC databases. From 2013 to 2020, the prevalence of gaps rose from 53% to 75%, with the time usually spent doing research. Gap prevalence for MD students also increased but not to the same extent and for different reasons. Differences by gender, underrepresented status, and program size were minimal. Most candidates who took a gap did so because they believed it would improve their chances of admission, but gaps were as common among those not accepted to MD-PhD programs as among those who were. Many program directors preferred candidates with gaps, believing without evidence that gaps reflects greater commitment. Although candidates with gaps were more likely to have a publication at the time of admission, gaps were not associated with a shorter time to degree nor have they been shown to improve outcomes. Together, these observations raise concerns that, by promoting gaps after college, current admissions practices have had unintended consequences without commensurate advantages.

Introduction

Integrated MD-PhD programs were developed in the 1950s to provide rigorous research training to future physician-scientists that is not part of the standard medical school curriculum ( 1 , 2 ). The earliest programs were few in number and limited in both size and diversity. Candidates to those programs typically applied after their junior year in college and began training within a few months of graduating from college. Since the 1950s, the national need for more physician-scientists and the contribution of MD-PhD programs to meeting that need has been recognized ( 3 – 5 ). As a result, substantial NIH and institutional resources have been invested to increase the number of programs, the number of trainees per program, and the diversity of students enrolled ( 3 , 6 , 7 ). At present, there are approximately 95 active programs, which we defined here as having at least 10 total trainees in the academic year ending in 2021 (AY2021). Fifty of the 95 programs were receiving National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) training support in the form of Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) T32 grants when this manuscript was being written ( 8 ). Nearly 6000 students are currently enrolled ( 9 ), and 600–700 new students begin training each year ( 2 , 10 ).

At the time that MD-PhD programs were expanding, there was considerable discussion about the limited number of undergraduates pursuing careers as physician-scientists ( 3 , 11 – 13 ). Several factors that dissuaded applicants were identified, including the extended training time, the increasing age at which physician-scientists establish independent research careers, the opportunity costs of extended training time, concerns about work/life imbalance, competition for faculty appointments with protected research time, and the challenges of sustaining a research career over many years ( 3 , 14 ). Total training time traditionally includes the time to degree in MD-PhD programs plus the time to complete postgraduate training. The duration of both has increased over the past few decades, such that trainees may not achieve an independent research position until they are in their late 30s or early 40s ( 2 , 13 , 15 ).

Here, we have focused on an underappreciated factor that increases the average age at which physician-scientists launch their independent careers: the growing tendency for undergraduates to postpone applying to MD-PhD programs until after they have finished college, rather than before their senior year. In 2020, two of the authors of the present study invited members of the National Association of MD-PhD Programs to participate in a pilot project to test their anecdotal impression that most students entering MD-PhD programs had waited to apply until after college. Twenty-two programs provided data that suggested that most entering students had done so. Based on that pilot, the present study was launched in early 2021, with invitations to participate sent to the directors of US MD-PhD programs. Most of the directors chose to participate, collectively representing 86% of the 5830 MD-PhD students enrolled in AY2021 and 49 of the 50 programs supported by NIGMS MSTP T32 grants ( 9 ). Participating programs were provided a school-specific link to an anonymous online survey to forward to their trainees. Participating trainees were asked when they graduated from college and when they started medical school. If there was a gap, they were asked why they had waited to apply, how they had used the time, from whom they had obtained advice, and whether they would recommend their choice to others. The survey also asked about their undergraduate research experience and publication record at the time that they applied to MD-PhD programs. A survey sent to directors asked whether their program’s application requested information about gaps and publications and, if they did, how they used this information in making decisions. Finally, we asked program directors for time-to-degree and gap length data for their recent graduates.

The surveys were completed by 3544 trainees (71%) and all but 1 program director. The results were combined with data on all applicants and matriculants obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Matriculant Data File. The results of the trainee survey show that gap prevalence among successful MD-PhD program applicants has steadily increased over the past decade. Although other reasons were identified, the increase reflects a common impression among applicants that a gap spent doing research is necessary for a successful application. The directors’ survey showed that many programs do pay attention to whether an applicant had devoted time after graduation to research but not to the extent that many applicants believe. Notably, we found no evidence in either the literature or this study that gaps shorten the time to degree or improve performance during or after graduation. This does not mean that gaps have no value to individual applicants, just that they should not be viewed as a requirement for admission to an MD-PhD programs.

Online surveys were distributed to students in US MD-PhD programs and their program directors in early 2021. Copies of each survey are included in the Supplemental Methods (supplemental material available online with this article; https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.156168DS1 The overall survey participation rate for MD-PhD program trainees was 71% (3544 of 5007 trainees in 73 programs, Supplemental Table 1 ). Average participation rates were slightly lower for large programs (≥100 students; 67% participation rate) than for small programs (<60 students; 75%) and for those programs with NIGMS MSTP T32 grants (70%) compared with those without (76%). 54% of participants identified as male, 44% as female, 0.8% as nonbinary, and 0.5% declined to answer; 15% identified themselves as members of one or more groups considered to be underrepresented in medicine (UIM, defined in Methods section). Results from the trainee survey were compared with data from the annual AAMC Matriculating Student Questionnaire (MSQ), which includes questions about time spent between college and medical school. Although the MSQ doesn’t separate answers from MD and MD-PhD students, it predominantly reflects MD candidates, who are approximately 97% of US medical school matriculants.

Gap prevalence has increased substantially.

Herein, we define a “gap” as the time between college graduation and matriculation into an MD-PhD program, with 0 years meaning that the student went straight from college into MD-PhD training with no time in between. Figure 1 illustrates gap prevalence, defined as the percentage of matriculating students who took a gap of ≥1 year, as a function of entry year from 2013 to 2020. The data show that gaps have become more prevalent for medical students in general during this period, but they are even more so for trainees in MD-PhD programs, rising from 53% among those who entered in 2013 to 75% for those who entered in 2020 ( Figure 1A ). Most of the upward trend is observed in those trainees who had a 1- or 2-year gap and not those whose gap lasted 3 or more years ( Figure 1B ).

( A ) Gap prevalence by matriculation year. Data on matriculating medical students (MD and MD-PhD) were obtained from the AAMC MSQ ( n = 12,779–16,668). MD-PhD data from current survey respondents (matriculation year 2013–2020, n = 306, 355, 391, 419, 424, 472, 451, and 519, respectively). ( B ) Shorter versus longer gaps by matriculation year. ( C ) Comparison of gap prevalence for current MD-PhD matriculants derived from present survey data with gap prevalence derived from AAMC data on all MD-PhD program matriculants from 2013–2020 ( n = 605–707/year, 5223 total). ( D ) Comparison of AAMC gap prevalence data for MD-PhD matriculants from 2013 to 2020 ( n = 605–707/ year, 5223 total) with gap prevalence data for those who were not accepted ( n = 957–1064/year, 8007 total). Comparison of gap duration for MD-PhD matriculants compared with those who were not admitted. ( E ) Average gap prevalence for trainees in NIGMS MSTP training grant-supported programs ( n = 49 programs, n = 3068 respondents, 70% participation rate) versus trainees from programs without MSTP grants ( n = 25 programs, n = 474 respondents, 76% participation rate) in 2021. Mean + SD. Boxes indicate the 25th to 75th percentiles; lines within the boxes indicate medians, and whiskers indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles. Points outside of whiskers are shown. Differences are not statistically significant by ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD post hoc test. ( F ) Programs were grouped by those with fewer than 60 trainees (group 1, n = 33 programs, n = 803 respondents, 75% participation rate), programs with 60–99 trainees (group 2, n = 26 programs, n = 1482 respondents, 72% participation rate), and programs with 100 or more trainees (group 3, n = 14 programs, n = 1257 respondents, 67% participation rate). Mean + SD. Differences are not statistically significant by 1-way ANOVA. ( G ) Gap prevalence by gender. NB, nonbinary; NA, declined to answer. ( H ) Gap prevalence by race/ethnicity. NA, declined to answer. ( G and H ) Parenthetical number represents total number of respondents in each group.

Because the survey data covered only 71% of current trainees, we also obtained deidentified AAMC data for all applicants to MD-PhD programs from 2013 to 2020. The data included the year applicants graduated from college, whether they matriculated into an MD-PhD program and the year they entered, and whether they were accepted somewhere or rejected everywhere. Figure 1C compares gap prevalence in the AAMC data set with data obtained in the present survey. The two curves are essentially superimposable, which suggests that there was little if any difference between those who responded to the present survey and those who did not with respect to gap prevalence. Figure 1D compares gap prevalence for those who matriculated into an MD-PhD program with those whose applications were unsuccessful. If anything, gap prevalence was greater among those who were not accepted than those who were, although this difference has gradually declined ( Figure 1D , left). When grouped by gap duration, unsuccessful applicants were more likely to have taken longer gaps ( Figure 1D , right).

The average gap prevalence by program for MD-PhD students varied considerably, ranging from 39% to 100%. There was no significant difference between programs currently funded by NIGMS MSTP T32 grants and those that are not, although the range of gap prevalence was wider in the programs that did not have NIGMS T32 funding (39%–100% vs. 48%–89%) ( Figure 1E ). There was also little difference by program size, gender, or self-identification as a member of a group considered to be UIM ( Figure 1, F–H ).

Gap length distribution.

The data in Figure 2 show the length of the gaps taken by current trainees who answered the survey. Among those who took a gap, durations of 1 or 2 years were by far the most common. Gaps lasting 3 or more years were reported by 629 of 3544 trainees (18%). There were no meaningful differences in gap length distribution by gender or among those who identified as belonging to groups considered to be UIM.

( A and C ) Total number of survey respondents in each group who had a gap of the indicated duration following college graduation. ( B and D ) Percentage of each group who took a gap of the indicated duration. Total number of survey respondents in each group is indicated in Figure 1 , G and H.

Prior research experience.

Figure 3 summarizes data on research experience and publications at the time of application. In general, students who had more research time in college (semesters and summers) were less likely to take a gap ( Figure 3, A and E ). Those who chose to not take a gap were more likely to have done research during the summer after their freshman year ( Figure 3, B and F ) and to have more total summers of research ( Figure 3, C and G ). Overall, 2205 of 3544 survey respondents (62%) reported having a publication at the time of application, with the likelihood of having a publication increasing among those with longer gaps ( Figure 3, D and H ). Each of these differences remained consistent across comparisons by gender and membership in groups considered to be UIM.

Survey respondents were divided into those with no gap ( n = 1196), a 1- to 2-year gap ( n = 1719), and a gap of ≥3 years ( n = 629). ( A–D ) Comparison of women ( n = 1574) and men ( n = 1923). ( E–H ) Comparison of those from groups considered to be underrepresented in medicine (UIM) ( n = 545) to those who are not (non-UIM) ( n = 2868). ( A and E ) Average number of semesters of research during college. ( B and F ) Percentage of those surveyed who reported a summer research experience between freshman and sophomore years. ( C and G ) Average number of summers of research. ( D and H ) Percentage of those surveyed who reported having a publication at the time of submission of their MD-PhD program application.

Undergraduate major and the decision to do a gap.

Most current trainees in MD-PhD programs who responded to the survey indicated that their undergraduate degrees were in the biological sciences. Smaller numbers majored in the physical sciences ( Figure 4A ). The smallest group consisted of those who were social science majors in college. Gap prevalence was greatest (82%) among the social sciences majors, who also tended toward longer gaps. Those who had been physical science majors were least likely to have a gap (61%) ( Figure 4B ).

( A ) Percentage of students reporting an indicated undergraduate major from a dropdown list of majors. Number of respondents and percentage of total ( n = 3544). ( B ) Respondent’s majors were grouped into three categories: social sciences (includes humanities, social sciences, and psychology), biological sciences, and physical sciences (includes chemistry, computer sciences, engineering, mathematics, and physics). The percentage of students in a given category who had no gap (blue), a 1- to 2-year gap (orange), or a gap of 3 or more years (gray) is shown. The total number of students in each category is shown in parentheses. Note that the number of students with majors in the social sciences is much smaller than in the other two categories.

Why did you do a gap?

A large part of the trainee survey focused on the decision to do a gap. Trainees who had taken a gap were asked to select from a predefined list of possible reasons. Their choices are summarized in Table 1 . They were also given the opportunity to select “other” and write in additional reasons ( Supplemental Table 2 ). Multiple selections were allowed, but in a subsequent question they were also asked to identify which of their selections they considered to be the primary reason. The most frequently selected reasons were “I thought that more research experience would make me a more competitive applicant” (66%) and “I wanted more research experience to solidify my decision to pursue a research-active career” (60%). Burnout, learning about MD-PhD programs too late, wanting more clinical experience, and needing to make money were each selected by about one-quarter of respondents. Needing the time to repeat the MCAT, complete prerequisites, and wanting to improve their academic record were selected least frequently. Of the 487 (14%) who selected “other,” the most common reasons were work and fellowship opportunities, not being sure about whether to apply, and needing to reapply. For the most part, there were few differences between men and women, between those who self-identified as UIM and those who did not, and between those whose gap lasted for 1 or 2 years and those whose gap was ≥3 years. However, individuals from groups considered to be UIM were more likely to list the need to make money or repeat the MCAT and were less likely to want to take personal time. Women were more likely than men to say that they were burnt out from school and needed time off. Those who took longer gaps were more likely to list wanting more research experience, more clinical experience, needing to make money, needing to retake the MCAT, improving grades, and prerequisite courses ( Table 1 ).

When asked to select the primary reason that they had chosen to take a gap, 52% of respondents listed a desire for more research experience, either to make them more competitive or to solidify their decision ( Table 2 and Figure 5A ). Notably, 75% of those who took a gap after college said that they did so to maximize their candidacy ( Figure 6A ). Only 10% thought it would not. Nearly everyone who had taken a gap said they would recommend taking one to others ( Figure 6B ). There was little or no difference in this response between men and women, and between those who self-identified as UIM and those who did not. Those who were most certain about the necessity of time between college and MD-PhD training were those with gaps that lasted 3 or more years; however, these differences were small ( Figure 6B ).

The students who had taken a gap were asked for ( A ) their primary reasons for doing a gap, ( B ) what they did during it, and ( C ) from where their advice came. Their choices and the percentage of respondents who selected that choice are shown on the pie charts. See also Tables 1 , ​ ,3, 3 , and ​ and6 6 for all of the reasons that were listed.

For the students who took a gap, responses to whether they felt a gap was necessary to maximize their candidacy and whether they would recommend taking a gap to future applicants. Number of respondents and the percentage of the total respondents for each response is shown. ( A ) The percentage who responded that a gap was necessary broken out by UIM status, gender, and gap duration. ( B ) The percentage of respondents who would recommend a gap by UIM status, gender, and gap duration.

What did you do during your time between college and medical school?

Trainees who had taken a gap were asked to select from a predefined list of possible activities during a gap ( Table 3 ). Multiple selections were allowed, but we also asked for what they considered to be the primary reason ( Table 4 and Figure 5B ). The two most frequently selected activities were “worked/volunteered in a research laboratory” (selected by 80% in Table 3 ) and “studied for and took the MCAT” (48%). 93% of those with a gap of 1 or 2 years and 97% of those taking a longer gap reported being in paid positions. We did not ask whether the pay that the received was sufficient for their living costs or whether they required additional support from other sources, including parents.

Taking the MCAT was especially prevalent among those who took gaps of ≥3 years, 81% of whom listed that as one of their activities. Members of groups considered to be UIM were more likely to list additional coursework and postbaccalaureate research programs. Those with longer gaps were more likely to list additional coursework, work in a field unrelated to medicine, and enrollment in a master’s program. “Other” activities included clinical experiences, but the number of people who selected “other” in Table 3 was small. Among the primary activities listed in Table 4 and Figure 5B , working in a research laboratory was by far the most frequent choice (59%), followed by enrollment in a postbaccalaureate research program (13% overall, 21% for individuals from underrepresented groups). Taken together, this indicates that 72% of those who took a gap were doing research as their primary activity.

We compared the responses to our survey with results from the AAMC MSQ survey, where the three most frequently selected activities were “worked in another career” (49% in 2020), “worked/volunteered in research” (48%), and “worked to improve finances” (40%) ( Table 5 ). The MSQ allowed multiple selections; however, the distribution of reasons to do a gap highlights a striking difference between MD-PhD program trainees and medical students in general.

How did you conclude that a gap was necessary?

By far the most frequent selection was “personal opinion,” a statement that presumably reflects multiple inputs as well as the applicant’s own musings. Other predefined choices in descending frequency were college pre-health advisors, online forums, current MD-PhD students, and advice from MD-PhD program directors ( Table 6 ). The ranked choices that respondents considered to be most influential are shown in Table 7 and Figure 5 C. Among the analyzed subgroups, members of underrepresented groups were more likely to acknowledge advice from program directors, as were men. Women were more likely to include college prehealth advisors and men were more likely to mention online forums. Current trainees who had gaps lasting ≥3 years were less likely to cite advice from college prehealth advisors and current MD-PhD students.

Approximately 71% (2511 trainees) of the 3544 trainees who completed the survey identified their undergraduate school. Assuming the survey respondents are representative of the overall MD-PhD trainee population, most current MD-PhD trainees came from a limited number of colleges. Although there were 385 colleges in all, 288 (75%) were represented in the survey by 5 or fewer respondents. Ranked by number of respondents, the top 30 colleges by respondent number (7.8% of 385) supplied 50% of the survey respondents. In this group of colleges, gap prevalence ranged from 15% to 89% ( Supplemental Figure 1 ). One caveat to the data on undergraduate institution is that 29% of respondents did not provide this information. Trainees who attended small colleges may have felt that identifying their college would make their responses identifiable to their program director and thus may have declined to provide the information.

Results from the survey of program directors.

After trainee survey collection was complete, a brief survey on related issues was sent to the directors of the 73 participating MD-PhD program, nearly all of whom completed it. One purpose of the survey was to ascertain whether trainees’ impressions that significant research experiences were necessary aligned with the preferences articulated by the program directors. The first question asked whether or not gaps are a factor that programs considered when making interview and admission decisions. 19 of 70 program directors (29%) responded “no” ( Figure 7A ). Notably, average gap prevalence among trainees who answered the survey was the same in programs that consider gaps a decision factor (68%) as in those that do not (69%).

( A ) Responses to the following question in the program director’s survey: “Are gaps a factor when deciding whom to interview and admit?” Blue bars show the percentage of directors who responded yes or no. The box-and-whisker plots to the right of each blue bar show the gap prevalence in the programs whose directors answered yes or no. Boxes indicate the 25th to 75th percentiles; lines within the boxes indicate medians, and whiskers indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles. Points above and below the whiskers are shown. Numbers indicate average gap prevalence for the programs ( n = 70). ( B ) Directors who responded that gaps were a factor were asked to indicate the impact on decision making from a dropdown list of responses. The possible choices are shown, with the percentage of respondents choosing a given response ( n = 51).

The 51 program directors who responded that they did take gaps into consideration for interview and admission decisions were then asked, “Which of the following descriptors best reflects how your admissions committee uses that information when evaluating a candidate for interview or acceptance. Assume that the time is spent doing research.” No one indicated a preference for candidates who had just graduated from college or advised candidates to not take a gap ( Figure 7B ). Conversely, none of the program directors indicated they require a research-focused gap, and only 5 (7%) said they strongly prefer it when making decisions. 46 said that they either somewhat prefer candidates who have taken a gap (29 program directors) or that the presence of a gap has no effect on their decisions (17 program directors). Counting the 21 programs that indicated that the existence of a gap is not a factor, this means that 53% (17 + 21 = 38) of the 72 program directors said that either they don’t consider gaps as a factor in their program’s interview and admission decisions or that gaps had no effect on those decisions.

Program directors were then asked if they view a gap spent doing research as being a favorable prognostic indicator for either commitment to complete an MD-PhD program or commitment to a career as a physician-scientist ( Figure 8A ). 71% answered probably or definitely “yes” to the first part of the question; 58% answered probably or definitely “yes” to the second. Notably, however, a sizable fraction of the program directors answered either “not enough to be useful” (24% and 35%) or “no” (6% and 7%) to these same questions, which suggests that, in the very least, there is not a consensus on whether taking a gap to demonstrate commitment will accomplish that goal for applicants.

Are gaps a prognostic factor, and what is the preferred activity during the gap? ( A ) Directors’ opinions regarding the extent to which an applicant choosing to take a gap indicates a commitment to complete the program (blue) and to pursue a career as a physician-scientist (red). Percentage of total responses is shown. ( B ) Directors’ choices from dropdown lists of preferred activity (red) and activity viewed most favorably (blue) ( n = 71).

Despite the lack of unanimity about the use of gap information in decision making, all but one of the program directors indicated that they care how candidates spend their time during a gap between college and medical school. Those 71 directors were then asked about which activities they view favorably and which they most prefer ( Figure 8B ). Working in a research setting or completing a prestigious individual fellowship were by far the most highly preferred activities.

Finally, program directors were asked how they view prior publications at the time of application. 43 (60%) answered “yes” to the question “Do you ask applicants whether they already have research papers submitted, in press, or published in your program’s application?” Of those 43, none considered first author publications to be essential. All 43 said that first author publications were either preferred or good if present but not negative if absent ( Figure 9 ). The corresponding replies for whether coauthor publications were considered essential, preferred, or good were 5%, 56% and 37%, respectively. Notably, a few of the programs that said they asked for publication-related information indicated that they were neutral (i.e., do not really care) about the answer.

The importance of an applicant having publications or abstracts. The directors’ survey asked whether secondary applications asked about publications. If they responded yes ( n = 43 of 71), they were asked to rate the importance of first author papers (blue), coauthored papers (orange), and abstracts (gray). The percentage of responses is shown.

Does taking a gap shorten the time to degree?

With most current students reporting that they took a gap before entering an MD-PhD program and that they typically used the time to work in a research setting, we were interested whether the additional research training and experience prior to matriculation facilitated faster completion of an MD-PhD program. Data on gap length and time to degree for matriculants entering on or after 2006 and graduating by 2021 was requested from all participating programs, of which 41 programs were able to provide information on 2391 graduates. Among the reported graduates, 1103 trainees did not take a gap and 1288 did. There was no difference in the average time to degree for those with gaps of 0, 1, or 2 years ( Figure 10 ). The average time to degree for those with a gap of 3 or more years was approximately 0.6 years (7 months) shorter than for trainees who took a shorter gap or who entered training without a gap ( P < 0.001 by 1-way ANOVA).

Forty-one programs provided deidentified data on 2391 program graduates who entered training after 2006 and graduated by 2021, 1103 with no gap, 581 with a 1-year gap, 401 with a 2-year gap, and 306 with a gap of 3 or more years. Boxes indicate the 25th to 75th percentiles, and whiskers indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles. Points above and below the whiskers are shown. The “+” in each box is the mean; this value is shown above each box. The time to degree was the same for those who took either no gap after college or a gap lasting 1 or 2 years. The average time to degree for those with a gap of 3 or more years was approximately 0.6 years (7 months) shorter ( P < 0.001 by 1-way ANOVA).

Recent events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, have highlighted the importance of biomedical research and the role that physician-scientists play in translating research from bench to bedside in a timely manner. Despite the importance of this career path, concerns have been raised for decades about the inadequate number of physician-scientists and the lack of necessary diversity in the physician-scientist workforce ( 3 , 6 , 16 , 17 ). While MD-PhD programs are not the only path to becoming a physician-scientist, they have attracted considerable attention because of their ability to integrate research and clinical training and because many graduates of these programs have proven to be successful in sustaining research careers ( 2 ). At a few medical schools, MD-PhD students represent 20% or more of each entering class, but nationwide only 3% of medical students are enrolled in an MD-PhD program. With the exception of the 2021 admissions cycle, the number of applications to MD-PhD programs has remained flat, while medical school applications have increased.

A number of factors have been cited to explain this lack of growth in the applicant pool. Notable factors include the time required to complete an MD-PhD program, the opportunity costs of deferred employment, the perception that physician-scientists start their families late and few manage to achieve acceptable work/life balance, limits on the number of positions available for physician-scientists, and lower salaries compared with either full-time clinical practice or tech sector jobs. The training path for physician-scientists often begins before or during college and extends through medical school, residencies, clinical fellowships, and postdocs, especially for those headed for careers in academia. As a result, training to become a physician-scientists can begin at 18 and last until 40 years of age. This path used to be considerably shorter. Reasons for why it has grown include increases in both the time to degree in MD-PhD programs and the time to a first job after postgraduate clinical training is complete ( 2 , 15 ).

Here, we have focused on a less appreciated contributor to the extension of training time — the increased prevalence of gaps taken between college and medical school. The data show that gap prevalence for MD-PhD students rose from 53% in 2013 to 75% in 2020, greatly outstripping the growth in gaps for MD students during the same time period. The dominant reason for this increase was applicants’ belief that gaps would increase their chances of being admitted, especially to the most competitive programs. Most trainees report using the gap period to build their research resumes. Notably, AAMC MSQ survey data show that research year(s) between college and medical school are common. However, the fraction of medical students doing gaps has now become substantially lower than the fraction of entering MD-PhD students ( Figure 1A ), and the reasons appear to be somewhat different. Many entering medical students cited a career shift as part of their decision to apply to medical school after gaining research experience. “Career switch” was not one of the prespecified choices in the current MD-PhD trainee survey, but respondents could write in additional reasons for deciding to do a gap, and 541 chose to do so. Only 16 (3%) described a career switch as a driving factor. That small group had an average gap duration nearly twice as long as those who didn’t describe a career switch (3.8 vs. 2.1 years).

Although large amounts of data were obtained from trainees, it is important to note as a potential limitation that only 71% of current trainees in participating programs chose to complete the survey. Because there is no way to know how the nonresponders would have answered the questions in the survey, we used AAMC data on applicants and matriculants to calculate gap prevalence for all successful and unsuccessful applicants to MD-PhD programs from 2013 to 2020. Those data confirm the rise in gap prevalence observed in our survey and show that unsuccessful applicants as a group were at least as likely to have taken a gap as those who were successful. This excludes the hypothesis that failure to gain admittance was due to a failure to take a gap. However, it does not exclude the possibility that at any given program there is a strong preference (conscious or unconscious) for applicants who have done gaps. The only way to determine the presence of a preference for a gap would be to evaluate program-specific data on those admitted versus those who were not admitted.

The opinions about gaps expressed by MD-PhD program directors proved to be more nuanced than the rush of applicants toward gaps would suggest. Only half (48%) indicated that they somewhat or strongly prefer applicants who have taken a gap, meaning that half of program directors do not. Although an even higher fraction (57%) felt that the decision to take a gap before applying probably or definitely forecasts commitment to a career as a physician-scientist, there are no data available to test this impression. We also found no evidence that time spent doing research in a gap shortens the time to degree, as might be expected if students arrive with greater skills and/or focus.

Why then is gap prevalence increasing? Part of the reason may be following the leader. Because most students in MD-PhD programs have done a research gap, it is not surprising that undergraduates will conclude that this is one way to increase their chances of admission. Compounding that impression is the advice that they get from college prehealth advisors, who often base their recommendations on past experience, and program directors, who emphasize the importance of meaningful, sustained research experiences. It seems that no matter the ambivalence that may be felt by individual program directors, collectively program directors are delivering the message that more research before applying to MD-PhD programs is better, full-time research is better than part time, and having one’s name on publications is desirable, although by no means essential. Advice about the value of gaps is also readily available via internet search engines. Some of it appears in forum discussions among those who have applied or are in the process of applying. Some of these opinions are from businesses selling their services to would-be physicians and physician-scientists.

A final factor that may be influencing admissions policies that favor gaps is the need to meet NIH expectations. NIGMS MSTP T32 grants currently support 50 MD-PhD programs, including, it should be noted, the 3 programs with which the authors of this study are affiliated. Over the past decade NIH expectations for data about applicants and matriculants has changed to require months of full-time research. Coincidentally or not, this change in reporting requirements coincided with the increase in gap prevalence.

What, then, is the harm if entrants into MD-PhD programs spend 1, 2, or 3 years doing full-time research before they dive into medical school? In addition to research and improved competitiveness, trainees in the present study listed a gap as a chance to take a break before an extended and intense training program, a wish to not spend their senior year applying, a desire to confirm their choice of a research-oriented career, and, in some cases, a need to reapply after falling short the first time. All of these reasons are perfectly understandable. Gaps are not without value in individual cases and, for some applicants, that value may be great enough to warrant taking the time. However, several adverse effects are also worth considering, including an extension of the already long time required before MD-PhD trainees can start their careers. Arguably, the greatest potential harm is when gaps result in a decision not to apply to MD-PhD programs, which may especially be the case for individuals from groups that are economically disadvantaged or UIM. Most MD-PhD programs provide tuition waivers and stipends for their students; however, the time invested in training comes with real costs. Training carries large opportunity costs for college graduates who could otherwise be headed toward careers that pay better sooner. For some without adequate family or personal resources, a gap and overall time in training can be a drain on financial resources that may not be fully compensated for by salaries earned many years later, and it may be limiting the diversity of applicants to MD-PhD programs.

At the end of the survey, trainees were invited to share any additional thoughts, and it is worth including a few of them here. Comments from the group that did not take a gap are especially informative. Although many reaffirmed their decision not to do a gap, others expressed regret, believing that they would have been more competitive, more mature, or more prepared if they had done so. Some expressed frustration that research gaps have become the new normal: “Gap years of research should not be a requirement for MD-PhD programs, that’s what the PhD is for.” One respondent reported, “I got feedback on my F30 [NIH fellowship application] that I could’ve had more publications if I’d taken a gap year, which seems like a ridiculous expectation given the length of the MD-PhD program already.” “I think the increasing number of students taking gap years is because of admission preference for the increased experience that comes with a gap year, which doesn’t necessarily reflect an individual’s capability to succeed in the program or future career.” These comments are anecdotal, but we agree with them.

Here is one comment that especially stood out: “The way selection is being done at the moment, you have essentially 90% of every matriculating class compos[ed] of students from research-intensive and/or ‘prestigious’ institutions. This exacerbates the inequities we already know of in undergraduate admissions and also causes the undesirable outcome where our MSTP trainees are not as diverse as can be.” The comment about 90% of matriculating MD-PhD students coming from research-intensive, prestigious institutions is not borne out by the data in this study; however, the comment that a perceived preference for applicants from research-intensive and/or prestigious institutes has an adverse effect on either racial or socioeconomic diversity is worrisome in an era when MD-PhD programs enroll relatively few students from groups considered to be UIM.

In conclusion, the present study shows that the majority of successful MD-PhD applicants are pausing after college to do more research and that they are doing so in part because of what they perceive to be a requirement for admission. That perception may not always be correct and may not be applicable to every program, but the survey data reported here make a compelling case. However, as tempting as it may be to believe, there are at present no data that would allow programs to conclude that gaps improve short- or long-term physician-scientist career outcomes. Unfortunately, the data set assembled in the National MD-PhD Outcomes study did not include college graduation year ( 2 ), which would have made it possible to calculate gap length. Absent such data, we suggest that policies and practices be revisited to assess their effect on applicants and societal needs for an active and diverse physician-scientist workforce. If a consensus emerges in the physician-scientist training community that undergraduates should hear that gaps are fine but not a requirement, then the answers to the survey question “How did you conclude that a gap was necessary?” suggest that applicants are getting the message from multiple sources — including college prehealth advisors, program directors, current MD-PhD students, and online forums — and integrating them amorphously into the most frequent answer “Personal opinion” ( Tables 6 and ​ and7). 7 ). All of these sources will have to be addressed in as many settings as possible, but especially in outreach talks by program directors, on program websites, and in organized events.

In January 2021 an email was sent to a listserv of MD-PhD programs maintained by the National Association of MD-PhD Programs. Program directors were invited to participate in a study of students’ reasons for taking a gap between college and matriculation into MD-PhD programs. 73 MD-PhD programs, including 49 of the 50 NIGMS MSTP-supported programs, agreed to participate. A Qualtrics survey link was sent to each program to distribute to their students. Survey links were tagged with a unique “source” string so that the number of responses from each participating program could be tracked. 3545 completed surveys were received (of a total 5007 students enrolled in the 73 participating institutions). One respondent provided an undergraduate graduation year and MD-PhD matriculation year that indicated a 1-year gap. This individual was excluded from the analysis. The overall response rate to this survey was 70.8%. For multiple response set questions where respondents could “select all that apply,” a subsequent question asked them to identify the primary reason from among those they had chosen.

Deidentified information on applicants and matriculants to MD-PhD programs for each year from 2010 to 2020 was obtained from the AAMC under a data licensing agreement. The information that was provided and used in the present study included the year of college graduation, the outcome of each application (accepted MD-PhD, accepted MD, rejected), and the year of matriculation into an MD-PhD program (from which gap length was calculated). For data on the percentage of matriculating medical students who took a gap, we obtained the AAMC MSQ All Schools Summary Reports for the period from 2013 through 2020 either from the AAMC website ( https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/students-residents/report/matriculating-student-questionnaire-msq ) or via a request to the AAMC Data Unit.

A follow-up survey of the directors of the participating MD-PhD programs was sent in April and May, 2021. 72 program directors provided data for an overall response rate of 97%. 41 program directors also answered a subsequent request by providing deidentified information on college graduation year, MD-PhD program matriculation year, and MD-PhD graduation year on 2391 program graduates who matriculated in 2006 or after. Gap duration was calculated as year of MD-PhD matriculation minus year of college graduation. Time to degree was calculated as year of MD-PhD graduation minus year of matriculation. We recognize that leaves of absence might alter calculated time to degree but we did not request information on leaves of absence.

The student survey asked all respondents demographic questions regarding race/ethnicity, gender, year of college graduation and MD-PhD program matriculation, college major, questions about the extent of undergraduate research experience, and number of publications at the time of MD-PhD program application. Race and ethnicity choices were consistent with NIH guidelines described in NOT-OD-15-089 ( 18 ); respondents could select all that applied. Respondents could optionally identify their undergraduate institution. Students who had 1 or more years between undergraduate graduation and MD-PhD program matriculation (gap years) were asked multiple-choice and open-ended questions focused on what students did during their gap years, why they chose to take a gap, and their research experiences prior to matriculation. All respondents were provided with an open-ended final question: “Please share any additional thoughts or comments regarding research requirements or gaps taken prior to matriculation in your MD-PhD program.” The survey is provided in Supplemental Methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and graphs. Responses were anonymized using the Qualtrics “anonymize response” feature and source identification was removed prior to analysis. No analysis was performed on a program-by-program basis. Responses from each program’s students will be returned to the program director in a fully deidentified format. The trainee survey was reviewed and granted exempted status by the University of Pennsylvania IRB.

For the purposes of this analysis, we defined UIM to include those individuals who self-identified with one or more of the following groups: Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Because of the limited numbers of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander trainees in MD-PhD programs and the increasing number of individuals who self-identify as members of more than one group, we chose in most of this analysis to report UIM as a single group, breaking out individual groups only when we felt that sufficient information was available. For some analyses, we defined program size based on the number of reported students. “MSTP funded” included those programs funded by NIGMS T32 grants during the July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 fiscal year. Undergraduate majors were categorized as physical sciences (chemistry, computer science, engineering, mathematics, physics), biological sciences (biological and biomedical sciences, health sciences), and social sciences (humanities, social sciences, psychology).

Statistics.

Where indicated in the text and figures, group comparisons were made using a 1-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD post hoc test for multiple comparisons after confirming that the data satisfy the assumption of a normal distribution. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Study approval.

The surveys were reviewed by the University of Pennsylvania IRB and deemed to meet eligibility criteria for IRB review exemption, authorized by 45 CFR 46.104, category 2.

Author contributions

LFB, RMF, and MHA collected data, analyzed data, and wrote the manuscript.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors express their appreciation to the MD-PhD programs, directors, and trainees who participated in this study; to Brian Sullivan, who as Secretary/Treasurer of the National Association of MD-PhD Programs helped to spread the word; and to Hope Charney at the University of Pennsylvania, who spent hours analyzing hundreds of free text comments in the trainee survey. Data on the MD-PhD applicant and matriculant pool and from the MSQ were provided by the AAMC. This work was supported in part by T32 GM07170 (to LFB), T32 GM007288 (to MHA), and T32 GM136651 (to RMF). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the AAMC.

Version Changes

Version 1. 03/22/2022.

Electronic publication

Conflict of interest: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Copyright: © 2022, Brass et al. This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Reference information: JCI Insight . 2022;7(6):e156168.https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.156168.

Explore Jobs

• Jobs Near Me
• Remote Jobs
• Full Time Jobs
• Part Time Jobs
• Entry Level Jobs
• Work From Home Jobs

Find Specific Jobs

• $15 Per Hour Jobs
• $20 Per Hour Jobs
• Hiring Immediately Jobs
• High School Jobs
• H1b Visa Jobs

Explore Careers

• Business And Financial
• Architecture And Engineering
• Computer And Mathematical

Explore Professions

• What They Do
• Certifications

Demographics

Best Companies

Health Care

• Fortune 500

Explore Companies

• CEO And Executies
• Resume Builder
• Career Advice
• Explore Majors
• Questions And Answers
• Interview Questions

Doctoral Student demographics and statistics in the US

Doctoral student demographics research summary. Zippia estimates doctoral student demographics and statistics in the United States by using a database of 30 million profiles. Our doctoral student estimates are verified against BLS, Census, and current job openings data for accuracy. Zippia's data science team found the following key facts about doctoral students after extensive research and analysis:

• There are over 29,753 doctoral students currently employed in the United States.
• 47.1% of all doctoral students are women, while 52.9% are men .
• The average doctoral student age is 44 years old.
• The most common ethnicity of doctoral students is White (53.9%), followed by Hispanic or Latino (17.6%), Asian (11.8%) and Black or African American (11.0%).
• In 2022, women earned 92% of what men earned.
• 6% of all doctoral students are LGBT .
• Doctoral students are 86% more likely to work at education companies in comparison to private companies.

Doctoral Student gender statistics

• Male , 52.9%
• Female , 47.1%

Doctoral Student gender ratio

Doctoral student gender pay gap.

Women earn 92¢ for every $1 earned by men

Doctoral Student gender ratio over time

Doctoral student gender ratio by year, doctoral student related jobs gender ratio.

We compared doctoral students with similar job titles to see how gender ratios vary. As you can see, hvac/r instructor and assistant professor of air conditioning and refrigeration have the biggest gender ratio gaps.

Doctoral Student demographics by race

• White , 53.9%
• Hispanic or Latino , 17.6%
• Asian , 11.8%
• Black or African American , 11.0%
• Unknown , 4.5%
• American Indian and Alaska Native , 1.2%

Doctoral Student Race

Doctoral student race and ethnicity over time.

See how doctoral student racial and ethnic diversity trended since 2010 according to the United States Census Bureau data.

• Hispanic or Latino
• Black or African American

Doctoral Student race and ethnicity by year

Doctoral student wage gap by race, average doctoral student age, doctoral student age by race and gender, doctoral student age breakdown.

30-40 years

20-30 years

Doctoral Student educational attainment

• Bachelor's , 53%
• Master's , 30%
• Doctorate , 14%
• Associate , 1%
• Other Degrees , 2%

Doctoral Students by degree level

Doctoral student jobs you might like, doctoral student wage gap by degree level, doctoral student employment statistics, company size where doctoral students work.

< 50 employees

50 - 100 employees

100 - 500 employees

500 - 1,000 employees

1,000 - 10,000 employees

> 10,000

Doctoral Student jobs by employer size

Doctoral student jobs by company type, doctoral student jobs by sector, doctoral student jobs by industry.

The most common industries for doctoral students are education, health care and manufacturing.

Manufacturing

Professional

Non Profits

Doctoral Student industry statistics

Doctoral student turnover and employment statistics, doctoral student unemployment rate over time.

• Unemployment rate

Doctoral Student unemployment rate by year

Average doctoral student tenure.

Less than one year

Doctoral Student tenure statistics

Doctoral student lgbt ratio compared to similar jobs, similar doctoral student jobs lgbt demographics, foreign languages spoken by doctoral students.

• Spanish , 23.9%
• French , 17.4%
• Chinese , 12.0%
• German , 8.5%
• Mandarin , 7.7%
• Other , 30.5%

Doctoral Student languages spoken

Doctoral student jobs, doctoral student location demographics.

Which city has the most Doctoral Students?

Doctoral Student jobs by state

Doctoral student demographics faqs, how many doctoral student are there in the us, what percentage of doctoral students are black, what race are most doctoral students, are doctoral student jobs male - dominated, how old is the average doctoral student, search for doctoral student jobs, related jobs demographics.

• Doctoral Fellow Demographics
• Graduate Assistant Demographics
• Graduate Internship Demographics
• Graduate Research Assistant Demographics
• Graduate Research Student Demographics
• Graduate Researcher Demographics
• Graduate Student Assistant Demographics
• Graduate Student Internship Demographics
• Graduate Teaching Assistant Demographics
• Laboratory Teaching Assistant Demographics
• PHD Researcher Demographics
• Postdoctoral Associate Demographics
• Postdoctoral Research Associate Demographics
• Postdoctoral Scholar Demographics
• Research Fellow Demographics

Doctoral Student Related Hirings

• How To Hire A Doctoral Fellow
• How To Hire A Graduate Assistant
• How To Hire A Graduate Internship
• How To Hire A Graduate Research Assistant
• How To Hire A Graduate Research Student
• How To Hire A Graduate Researcher
• How To Hire A Graduate Student Internship
• How To Hire An PHD Researcher
• How To Hire A Postdoctoral Associate
• How To Hire A Postdoctoral Research Associate
• How To Hire A Postdoctoral Scholar
• How To Hire A Research Fellow
• How To Hire A Researcher
• How To Hire A Senior Research Fellow
• How To Hire A Student Instructor

Doctoral Student Related Jobs

• Doctoral Fellow Jobs Near Me
• Graduate Assistant Jobs Near Me
• Graduate Internship Jobs Near Me
• Graduate Research Assistant Jobs Near Me
• Graduate Research Student Jobs Near Me
• Graduate Researcher Jobs Near Me
• Graduate Student Assistant Jobs Near Me
• Graduate Student Internship Jobs Near Me
• Graduate Teaching Assistant Jobs Near Me
• Laboratory Teaching Assistant Jobs Near Me
• PHD Researcher Jobs Near Me
• Postdoctoral Associate Jobs Near Me
• Postdoctoral Research Associate Jobs Near Me
• Postdoctoral Scholar Jobs Near Me
• Research Fellow Jobs Near Me

What Similar Roles Do

• What a Doctoral Fellow Does
• What a Graduate Assistant Does
• What a Graduate Internship Does
• What a Graduate Research Assistant Does
• What a Graduate Research Student Does
• What a Graduate Student Assistant Does
• What a Graduate Teaching Assistant Does
• What an PHD Researcher Does
• What a Postdoctoral Associate Does
• What a Postdoctoral Research Associate Does
• What a Postdoctoral Scholar Does
• What a Research Fellow Does
• What a Researcher Does
• What a Senior Research Fellow Does
• What a Student Instructor Does
• Zippia Careers
• Education, Training, and Library Industry
• Doctoral Student
• Doctoral Student Demographics

Browse education, training, and library jobs