A fast track 3 yr phd would be really great and yes the US system would make that very difficult.
I am equating those things under this context, if the majority of PhD grads are not becoming professors, I would like it if they "released" more of them sooner with something like your 3yr degree.
I think I can somewhat quantify prestige if you look at where some CS professors got their PhD[1]. I do think science is meritocratic but that doesn't mean all scientists are or statistics like these mean that all scientists won't experience self doubt or even get in to pissing contests with others about credentials. That sort of attitude really detracts from the altruistic community effort I imagine.
Can I ask where you are studying? I have genuine curiosity about the Euro grad schools.
edit: I should add that in no way am I saying these results prove prestige has influence or that things aren't meritocratic. But can you envision how someone might look at this and interpret it so it reinforces stereotypes or misconceptions? Spots for grad students shouldn't be zero-sum.
full disclaimer: I went to a university with a top 5 program in my field and I don't think there is a very large difference in research from these universities over time.
edit2: Another clarification, it shouldn't be that someone says "oh I didn't get in to XYZ U, I am a failure" nor should it be "oh I got in to XYZ U, I am superior". It should be, simply, "I got in to grad school, now I will study and perform research." The former attitudes are things I have encountered and find it distasteful.
Maybe too late to see this now but to answer your Q I'm at Edinburgh; IMO an ok university but not prestigious. Most EU PhDs are 3.5-4 years, I have a friend with dual US-UK citizenship that chose to do his PhD over here for this reason.
I agree wrt differences between similarly ranked institutions. I'd say similarly that the variance within groups at a top 5 school is greater than the variance between groups when compared with slightly lower ranking institutes.
I am equating those things under this context, if the majority of PhD grads are not becoming professors, I would like it if they "released" more of them sooner with something like your 3yr degree.
I think I can somewhat quantify prestige if you look at where some CS professors got their PhD[1]. I do think science is meritocratic but that doesn't mean all scientists are or statistics like these mean that all scientists won't experience self doubt or even get in to pissing contests with others about credentials. That sort of attitude really detracts from the altruistic community effort I imagine.
Can I ask where you are studying? I have genuine curiosity about the Euro grad schools.
[1]http://cs.brown.edu/people/alexpap/faculty_dataset.html
edit: I should add that in no way am I saying these results prove prestige has influence or that things aren't meritocratic. But can you envision how someone might look at this and interpret it so it reinforces stereotypes or misconceptions? Spots for grad students shouldn't be zero-sum.
full disclaimer: I went to a university with a top 5 program in my field and I don't think there is a very large difference in research from these universities over time.
edit2: Another clarification, it shouldn't be that someone says "oh I didn't get in to XYZ U, I am a failure" nor should it be "oh I got in to XYZ U, I am superior". It should be, simply, "I got in to grad school, now I will study and perform research." The former attitudes are things I have encountered and find it distasteful.