hi all, which universities offer fast track phd? i have finished my degree with first class cpa and intend to do fast track phd.

I am not sure that such a thing exists. In my former university, PhD students were not allowed to submit until they had done at least 2.5 years of work.

yep, similar at mine, 2.75 years is minimum submission time

Depending on the country it might also mean without doing the master first (?) Otherwise it would be a bit strange to have just 3 years of bachelor followed by a fast track Phd. That would mean"only" 5 years compared to the 8-9 years it takes in every other country. Can't believe that this is possible. Would be a bit too easy in my opinion ;)

I think you mean something like this link?

I think it depends on your field and where you are intending to do your PhD. I know that in my field of engineering and computer science, MOST universities outside the EU allow you to do that. I don't know about other subjects. ETH is probably one of the few inside EU which allow it, and probably for good reason too - not easy to fulfill its requirements!

A lot of universities offer a fast-track option but it is limited to the best students. Never heard of a student who had that option at my university but in theory it is possible. You just have to be bright like Rainman and need the support of a department. Nevertheless that would be only interesting for Non-UK students and not for UK students, as that is just the usual procedure in UK and not fast track ;)

Finishing a PhD in 2.75 years after a BSc isn't a fast track option. In theory, any UK student can do that. You can get a PhD in without an MSc and then you just follow the university guidelines that tell you to submit 3 months before the end of your funding. Theoretically, this is the case for most UK PhD students, except of course, very very few are in a position to submit within 2.75 years, but this really has nothing to do with the quality of student.

Also, there are cases I know of where students start doing an MSc and then just get upgraded to a PhD, so they never get an MSc qualification, but then they still take 4 years to finish the PhD. I guess it's possible you could do that in 2.75 years though.

In my university, for masters you need to take 8~10 graduate courses above bachelor degree + 1 seminar course + a thesis. Therefore you at least spend 2 years to complete all courses. Most people finish masters between 2.5 to 3 years. I have seen some people finishing in 2 years but not many.
For PhD: if you have masters with accredited 10 graduate courses, then you only need 2 additional courses (total of 10~12 graduate courses) + another seminar course + a thesis. If you do not have masters, then you must take all needed graduate courses (10 to 12). PhD usually takes between 3 to 4 years if you already have a masters and 4 to 5 years if you do not have a masters. Most people get masters and then go for PhD so on average a masters and a PhD is between 6 to 7 years total. There are exceptions to this rule but there are very rare.

In the UK, MSc courses are only one year, some have classes and some don't, and there are no classes for PhD at all. That's the main reason it's quicker.

In Australia you can go straight from a BA Honours to a PhD without having to do any postgrad stuff in between.

When I went to Australia for my Masters by Research Only (no coursework) in 2011, the first day I met my supervisor he advised me to upgrade to a PhD and to treat the project as a PhD project, which I did. I submitted in 3.5 years and have been finished since December 2014 (now graduated and officially a Dr yay!)

I'm originally from Canada, so had applied for a masters thinking that I had to do one first, but this wasn't the case in Australia.

It's not a 'fast-track' per say but the option to skip the MA if you have the capacity. However, there are upsides and downsides. The upside was a quicker finish for the PhD, but some downsides included feeling a bit behind (even though I did very well) because I didn't have the MA experience coming straight out from a BA honours, and feeling behind in some areas such as knowing about grants, getting published and conference attending. It was also a whole new subject area for me as well.

So to fast track, the options need to be weighed. It hasn't impacted my career as I managed to land a T&R position at my uni and am beginning to collaborate with other researchers on projects, but it also hasn't been easy.

So one thing to keep in mind is that fast tracking can be a disadvantage for you when considering all the other not-so-directly related aspects of the PhD/Academic life. I had full funding from the university in the form of an international scholarship, so grants were not things I was thinking about (but now wish I had to beef up the CV).

I had 4 years BA and then the PhD took an additional 3.5 years, so a total of 7.5 years.

I definitely agree. I think even though it takes longer, there are big advantages to doing an MSc before a PhD.

I think it depends on your long-term goals. If you go for a position in academia such as lecturer, assistant professor etc. it is probably an advantage. It is hard to compare PhD students among each other but I have a hard time believing that someone with "only" the bachelors degree has the same routine and performs as well as someone with a master degree. I definitely would not. We have 2 year master programms and that is often more than 1 year practical lab research + the course work combined. That is just a lot of experience.

However, if you don't want to continue in academia, I would consider it a huge advantage to skip the master. Companies often appreciate younger applicants, as they are more "shapeable" and you also have the advantage of getting a real salary two years earlier. Not so bad. It is definitely one of the down sides that you are often 30 years + until you enter the job market.

I find this a little insulting....However, it's also not clear if you are referring to hard science degrees only, because I am in the social sciences and do mixed methods (quant/qual) as well as both content analysis and interviews as my major research methodologies.

If the former, I may have had just bachelors with honours, but I also graduated with an exceptionally high average (over 90%), had two RAs under my belt by my undergraduate graduation, one completed for a not-for-profit while the other for my university, 2 scholarships and 1 grant, a publication and fieldwork experience.

I performed exceptionally well during my PhD despite the set backs I mentioned earlier. I was fully funded, had a very strong result with my PhD examination (pass with minor and I mean took 2 days minor changes), continued to gain RA experience, completed social research tenders (i.e. outside the university research for not-for-profits/governments), conference presentations, had published from my PhD prior to submission and am currently publishing more works, and a heap of teaching experience that included complete unit coordination and lecturing as well as tutoring and guest lecturing. None of this includes any of the community outreach or professional service that I engage in on top of all of this.

But this wasn't easy and I worked very, and I mean very hard. I knew I had a disadvantage coming in straight from a BA Honours, but to suggest that someone like me 'wouldn't perform as well' as someone with a masters degree is a bit pretentious. I know a number of masters to PhDs doing absolutely poorly, and ones doing very well.

It's highly individual and on that note, no PhD student will have the same routine that works for them.

You would have exactly the same CV if you did a 2-year master before your PhD project. I am not saying that people who start a PhD after their bachelor degree are generally incompetent, but that 2 years more experience are 2 years more experience (for the individual researcher !). No need to justify yourself. It is just a completely objective fact. Of course you also find incompetent master graduates but that is completely individual. Those people would not have performed better if they started the PhD right away after the bachelor.I may relate it to natural sciences, but that does not change the point. More experience is more experience. I don't really believe that someone does 2 years of masters and does not develop at all.

I did not mean that offensive but I truly believe that e.g. a physicist needs much more supervision and guidance if he starts a PhD after the bachelor compared to the same physicist with a master degree. If you just compare a master thesis to a bachelor thesis and the amount of time you spent for the research. That is a huge difference. I can't believe that this makes no difference for the individual. That you worked hard doesn't change that fact or would you've worked less hard during a master degree? ;)

To add this, I did a taught MSc rather than a research one, and this also made a massive difference. I know I would have done so much better in my PhD if I had actual research experience before starting.