NSF pilots 4-year PhDs with industry research placements

France has a similar program called CIFRE and it is bad.

An academic pairs with a buddy in industry. This relationship usually remains fixed in their careers. The representative in the company hires an engineer, makes a CIFRE contract and asks the academic to register the student and takes care of paperwork. There is no open call, competitive submission of proposals, a committee and a process. I don’t know how government is OK with this. The company sends the information about the recruitment to the government and gets tax waiver. Therefore, the company hires an engineer paid by taxpayers, nearly free for the company. A small amount of money is sent to the academic for conference travel etc. In many cases, student remains in the company and there is no need for academic other than for periodic paperwork. Importantly, the student works on tasks assigned by the company, which in many cases is not really research. It could be product improvement, mechanical work, client work, or some R&D or short term research. It’s not science or long term research, and no classes are involved. Next year, next student, it will be the same pair.

The program attracts students because they want jobs (in many cases their contracts is extended after 3 years of PhD, and they are actually incentivized to work well during that 3 years and be a good employee). Companies like it because of essentially free engineers and government rapport. Academics are content because they can say they have a student (even if they don’t see the student much if at all sometimes), cite collaboration with industry, and get some money for travel. The academic cannot complain, or require student spend more time in university, because the company would say, we will replace you next time with another academic who will be happy to sign off to paperwork and not to cause issues. The three parties are happy, and the taxpayer looses, because of a badly set up program. Maybe the American version will work, not the French version!

My wife did her mathematics PhD under an analogous structure in Germany where it’s fairly common. She was supervised by a professor at the University of Munich and a lab at Bosch, wrote and defended a thesis as usual. Employed in industry immediately after graduating. A great experience.

If you want to skip the fluff, the actual funded program abstract here:

https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award/?AWD_ID=2624416

Appropriately enough for a pilot, there's a structured usual cohort-mentoring and outcomes evaluation component.

(NSF brings 3 years of $$$, but as it is, it doesn't seem like attempt to nudge people screwed over by GRFP restrictions towards industry.)

China actually started piloting the "industry Phd" in 2025, and took inspiration from Japan, Germany, and UK where some programs do industry experience as part of Phd training. A lot of the Chinese programs are in agriculture, engineering, and biotech. China's Ministry of Education actually published the "suggestion for experimentation" (loose translation) in 2023, and it trickled out from there as each province level government and university system started designing their own systems.

http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/moe_826/202312/t20231218_1...

Europe has already pushed shorter PhDs with the excuse of facilitating development in technology/industry. It's been a huge failure in mathematics for various reasons among which are: 1. Students don't have time to develop autonomy and independence, so this remains for the postdoctoral period. 2. Students are forced into publishing things that shouldn't be published (it's often a requirement to terminate a doctorate) and these are shallower and less complete than they should be.

The true motivation seems to be that it is cheaper to fund 3 years than 5. Master's degrees have been made obligatory prior to doctorates (in the US this is traditionally not the case) and so are not covered by doctoral funding - rather they are paid for by students in many cases.

It may very well have sense to have a shorter track aimed at industry, but it shouldn't be called a doctorate and all doctorates shouldn't be shunted into this setup.

I don't love the increasing move towards industry research instead of traditional academia. It is just going to mean more closely-held, proprietary advancements.

I did my PhD funded for 3 years off of NIH and the remaining year and so off of corporate research grants. I really valued the fact that I was working on an industrial project, and could see it come to life with real funding and real backing.

The critical part imho will be allowing for enough independence in research, and that the time isn't just wasted filling in remedial RAs pushing pipettes around. Real safeguards will be needed, likely overseen by the PI and committee.

I genuinely hope it works and helps industry "figure out" that R&D is more than just simply productizing over the next quarter.

In all fairness, there are various fields where your academic lab in graduate school and your entire degree is funded by a private firm through a grant, etc.

I did my undergrad (BSc) in the US and then came to Switzerland for grad school. In some ways, this initiative seems to split the difference between these two systems.

In the US, I've seen people start PhD programs with a BSc degree and take 6-8 years. I've encountered many engineering companies at job fairs who said that for them a PhD is a disqualifying factor for many positions, because the experience is not relevant but they would need to (or felt obliged to, for whatever reason) pay extra for this degree.

In Switzerland, people would do a 1.5-2 year MSc degree after their BSc. This would still be mostly classes with one 6-month-long research / technical project. This was the expectation for many technical jobs. Some then did a PhD, which would take 3-4 years and required to have a MSc already to apply. Many of these projects (at least in my field) were sponsored by the industry.

This is a good use of TIP division funding. Whatever they were doing before seemed pointless.

I find it interesting that semiconductor companies like Applied Materials, IBM, TI, Analog Devices, Intel, Lam, Micron have not signed up to join this program since they typically hire a significant number of PhDs. Perhaps there are concerns about IP protection.

Hot take but academia and industry don't have fundamentally different goals anymore. The real challenge is making sure students don't end up satisfying neither. A PhD that isn't published enough for academia and isn't impactful enough for industry is the worst outcome.

I can't figure out where I'd apply for this program as a student. Does anyone know?

PhD is slavery. You would rather go straight to industry getting paid in full.

Here is the I-PhD program's website - https://uidp.org/i-phd-scholars/

Reader read NFS v4 and was disappointed in their title comprehension.

[flagged]

Very perplexing.

There’s already a 3-4 year advanced degree in the United States with an optional thesis component that companies in relevant industries can intervene in and direct if they so desire.

So why are they calling it a doctorate? I don’t see the point. It’s not like the NSF under this administration is particularly fond of STEM doctorates.

I’m open to any theories about what the real point of this is.