looks like UCLA killer was a desi

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.firstpost.com/world/ucla-shooting-answers-to-mainak-sarkar-mystery-may-lie-in-prosenjit-poddars-story-2815358.html

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.firstpost.com/world/ucla-shooting-answers-to-mainak-sarkar-mystery-may-lie-in-prosenjit-poddars-story-2815358.html

there's even a book:
https://www.amazon.com/BAD-KARMA-Story-Obsession-Murder-ebook/dp/B00AMQ1LIM#customerReviews

goodcitizn wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.firstpost.com/world/ucla-shooting-answers-to-mainak-sarkar-mystery-may-lie-in-prosenjit-poddars-story-2815358.html

there's even a book:
https://www.amazon.com/BAD-KARMA-Story-Obsession-Murder-ebook/dp/B00AMQ1LIM#customerReviews

While there are parallels between Sarkar and Poddar, the latter was a case of obsession over a girl who lured, then rejected him. I don't see the clash of cultures with Sarkar who ended up marrying his girl friend. I see him more as a misfit loner dweeb who was 38, whose wife left him probably because she found him mentally unstable, who was a loser typically blaming others for his misery, and so on. At the very least, the guy was suicidal and decided to take those he despised with him.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:prof klug and his family are not the only victims here. his graduate students, the future students who could have trained under him, the millions and millions of people who could have benefited from his research are also sarkar and the NRA's victims. this is a crime against humanity.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.firstpost.com/world/ucla-shooting-answers-to-mainak-sarkar-mystery-may-lie-in-prosenjit-poddars-story-2815358.html

there's even a book:
https://www.amazon.com/BAD-KARMA-Story-Obsession-Murder-ebook/dp/B00AMQ1LIM#customerReviews

While there are parallels between Sarkar and Poddar, the latter was a case of obsession over a girl who lured, then rejected him. I don't see the clash of cultures with Sarkar who ended up marrying his girl friend. I see him more as a misfit loner dweeb who was 38, whose wife left him probably because she found him mentally unstable, who was a loser typically blaming others for his misery, and so on. At the very least, the guy was suicidal and decided to take those he despised with him.

i agree they are not exactly the same, but there are parallels. the tarasoff -- poddar case changed a major law that is cited to this day in psychiatry circles -- a mental health professional is legally bound to inform law enforcement if he feels there is a specific threat posed by a mentally unstable individual to others. if it turns out that sarkar was mentally unstable, i'd like to see something similar happen with gun purchasing and mental health.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:prof klug and his family are not the only victims here. his graduate students, the future students who could have trained under him, the millions and millions of people who could have benefited from his research are also sarkar and the NRA's victims. this is a crime against humanity.

Forget this as a crime against humanity. This guy seemed to be working his students for their Ph.D. diplomas as a cheap labor for 6 or more years on the average in several instances, the degree (ph.D.) which usually (including in his own case probably) should not be taking more than 4 yrs.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:prof klug and his family are not the only victims here. his graduate students, the future students who could have trained under him, the millions and millions of people who could have benefited from his research are also sarkar and the NRA's victims. this is a crime against humanity.

Forget this as a crime against humanity. This guy seemed to be working his students for their Ph.D. diplomas as a cheap labor for 6 or more years on the average in several instances, the degree (ph.D.) which usually (including in his own case probably) should not be taking more than 4 yrs.

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:prof klug and his family are not the only victims here. his graduate students, the future students who could have trained under him, the millions and millions of people who could have benefited from his research are also sarkar and the NRA's victims. this is a crime against humanity.

Forget this as a crime against humanity. This guy seemed to be working his students for their Ph.D. diplomas as a cheap labor for 6 or more years on the average in several instances, the degree (ph.D.) which usually (including in his own case probably) should not be taking more than 4 yrs.

Yeah, blame the dead guy without any proof.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:prof klug and his family are not the only victims here. his graduate students, the future students who could have trained under him, the millions and millions of people who could have benefited from his research are also sarkar and the NRA's victims. this is a crime against humanity.

Forget this as a crime against humanity. This guy seemed to be working his students for their Ph.D. diplomas as a cheap labor for 6 or more years on the average in several instances, the degree (ph.D.) which usually (including in his own case probably) should not be taking more than 4 yrs.

every other student and his colleagues say he was the salt of the earth in addition to being a brilliant researcher and teacher, and yet you blame the victim. i have no idea what compels you to say this.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:prof klug and his family are not the only victims here. his graduate students, the future students who could have trained under him, the millions and millions of people who could have benefited from his research are also sarkar and the NRA's victims. this is a crime against humanity.

Forget this as a crime against humanity. This guy seemed to be working his students for their Ph.D. diplomas as a cheap labor for 6 or more years on the average in several instances, the degree (ph.D.) which usually (including in his own case probably) should not be taking more than 4 yrs.

Yeah, blame the dead guy without any proof.

I am quite saddened about this tragic accident and the loss of lives, and did you miss one of my earlier posts (copy-pasted below in blue and the reference for the statement (in italics) in red color). It is clear from the following that Mr. Aggarwal is a Ph.D. student for +8 yrs. (since 2008), Mr. Krishnamoorthi for +7 yrs. (since 2009), and Mr. Sarkar spent +7 yrs. on his Ph.D. after having already completed his M.S. prior to 2006. 

Btw is there a problem with the Ph.D. program at this college, as the students working for Ph.D. seem to be taking unusually long time (e.g. 7 or 8 yrs.):

"On the UCLA website Sarkar is listed as part of the Klug Research Group, a team of six postdoctoral and PhD students researching biomechanics. Two others, besides Sarkar, are of Indian-origin: Ankush Aggarwal, ME Ph.D. student, 2008-, and Shankarjee Krishnamoorthi, ME PhD student, 2009-. Sarkar is the seniormost of the lot with a Phd enrollment going back to 2006 (Ph.D. completed in 2013, after already having M.S. degree), two years longer than any of the others." (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/IIT-Kharagpur-alumnus-kills-US-professor-at-UCLA-over-academic-spat/articleshow/52559222.cms)

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:prof klug and his family are not the only victims here. his graduate students, the future students who could have trained under him, the millions and millions of people who could have benefited from his research are also sarkar and the NRA's victims. this is a crime against humanity.

Forget this as a crime against humanity. This guy seemed to be working his students for their Ph.D. diplomas as a cheap labor for 6 or more years on the average in several instances, the degree (ph.D.) which usually (including in his own case probably) should not be taking more than 4 yrs.

Yeah, blame the dead guy without any proof.

I am quite saddened about this tragic accident and the loss of lives, and did you miss one of my earlier posts (copy-pasted below in blue and the reference for the statement (in italics) in red color). It is clear from the following that Mr. Aggarwal is a Ph.D. student for +8 yrs. (since 2008), Mr. Krishnamoorthi for +7 yrs. (since 2009), and Mr. Sarkar spent +7 yrs. on his Ph.D. after having already completed his M.S. prior to 2006. 

Btw is there a problem with the Ph.D. program at this college, as the students working for Ph.D. seem to be taking unusually long time (e.g. 7 or 8 yrs.):

"On the UCLA website Sarkar is listed as part of the Klug Research Group, a team of six postdoctoral and PhD students researching biomechanics. Two others, besides Sarkar, are of Indian-origin: Ankush Aggarwal, ME Ph.D. student, 2008-, and Shankarjee Krishnamoorthi, ME PhD student, 2009-. Sarkar is the seniormost of the lot with a Phd enrollment going back to 2006 (Ph.D. completed in 2013, after already having M.S. degree), two years longer than any of the others." (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/IIT-Kharagpur-alumnus-kills-US-professor-at-UCLA-over-academic-spat/articleshow/52559222.cms)

As a matter of fact, I did read your original link but it doesn't support your contention that these Indian students were forced to stay with the program longer, not of their own volition, nor is there any evidence of the professor using them as cheap slave labor for his own benefit.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Forget this as a crime against humanity. This guy seemed to be working his students for their Ph.D. diplomas as a cheap labor for 6 or more years on the average in several instances, the degree (ph.D.) which usually (including in his own case probably) should not be taking more than 4 yrs.

Yeah, blame the dead guy without any proof.

I am quite saddened about this tragic accident and the loss of lives, and did you miss one of my earlier posts (copy-pasted below in blue and the reference for the statement (in italics) in red color). It is clear from the following that Mr. Aggarwal is a Ph.D. student for +8 yrs. (since 2008), Mr. Krishnamoorthi for +7 yrs. (since 2009), and Mr. Sarkar spent +7 yrs. on his Ph.D. after having already completed his M.S. prior to 2006. 

Btw is there a problem with the Ph.D. program at this college, as the students working for Ph.D. seem to be taking unusually long time (e.g. 7 or 8 yrs.):

"On the UCLA website Sarkar is listed as part of the Klug Research Group, a team of six postdoctoral and PhD students researching biomechanics. Two others, besides Sarkar, are of Indian-origin: Ankush Aggarwal, ME Ph.D. student, 2008-, and Shankarjee Krishnamoorthi, ME PhD student, 2009-. Sarkar is the seniormost of the lot with a Phd enrollment going back to 2006 (Ph.D. completed in 2013, after already having M.S. degree), two years longer than any of the others." (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/IIT-Kharagpur-alumnus-kills-US-professor-at-UCLA-over-academic-spat/articleshow/52559222.cms)

As a matter of fact, I did read your original link but it doesn't support your contention that these Indian students were forced to stay with the program longer, not of their own volition, nor is there any evidence of the professor using them as cheap slave labor for his own benefit.

You probably would say the same thing about workers in sweatshops, as not forced or made to stay longer or used as cheap slave labor for owner's benefit.

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:
Yeah, blame the dead guy without any proof.

I am quite saddened about this tragic accident and the loss of lives, and did you miss one of my earlier posts (copy-pasted below in blue and the reference for the statement (in italics) in red color). It is clear from the following that Mr. Aggarwal is a Ph.D. student for +8 yrs. (since 2008), Mr. Krishnamoorthi for +7 yrs. (since 2009), and Mr. Sarkar spent +7 yrs. on his Ph.D. after having already completed his M.S. prior to 2006. 

Btw is there a problem with the Ph.D. program at this college, as the students working for Ph.D. seem to be taking unusually long time (e.g. 7 or 8 yrs.):

"On the UCLA website Sarkar is listed as part of the Klug Research Group, a team of six postdoctoral and PhD students researching biomechanics. Two others, besides Sarkar, are of Indian-origin: Ankush Aggarwal, ME Ph.D. student, 2008-, and Shankarjee Krishnamoorthi, ME PhD student, 2009-. Sarkar is the seniormost of the lot with a Phd enrollment going back to 2006 (Ph.D. completed in 2013, after already having M.S. degree), two years longer than any of the others." (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/IIT-Kharagpur-alumnus-kills-US-professor-at-UCLA-over-academic-spat/articleshow/52559222.cms)

As a matter of fact, I did read your original link but it doesn't support your contention that these Indian students were forced to stay with the program longer, not of their own volition, nor is there any evidence of the professor using them as cheap slave labor for his own benefit.

You probably would say the same thing about workers in sweatshops, as not forced or made to stay longer or used as cheap slave labor for owner's benefit.

No, I wouldn't because there is sufficient proof to support it. You have no proof to back your claim.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
I am quite saddened about this tragic accident and the loss of lives, and did you miss one of my earlier posts (copy-pasted below in blue and the reference for the statement (in italics) in red color). It is clear from the following that Mr. Aggarwal is a Ph.D. student for +8 yrs. (since 2008), Mr. Krishnamoorthi for +7 yrs. (since 2009), and Mr. Sarkar spent +7 yrs. on his Ph.D. after having already completed his M.S. prior to 2006. 

Btw is there a problem with the Ph.D. program at this college, as the students working for Ph.D. seem to be taking unusually long time (e.g. 7 or 8 yrs.):

"On the UCLA website Sarkar is listed as part of the Klug Research Group, a team of six postdoctoral and PhD students researching biomechanics. Two others, besides Sarkar, are of Indian-origin: Ankush Aggarwal, ME Ph.D. student, 2008-, and Shankarjee Krishnamoorthi, ME PhD student, 2009-. Sarkar is the seniormost of the lot with a Phd enrollment going back to 2006 (Ph.D. completed in 2013, after already having M.S. degree), two years longer than any of the others." (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/IIT-Kharagpur-alumnus-kills-US-professor-at-UCLA-over-academic-spat/articleshow/52559222.cms)

As a matter of fact, I did read your original link but it doesn't support your contention that these Indian students were forced to stay with the program longer, not of their own volition, nor is there any evidence of the professor using them as cheap slave labor for his own benefit.

You probably would say the same thing about workers in sweatshops, as not forced or made to stay longer or used as cheap slave labor for owner's benefit.

No, I wouldn't because there is sufficient proof to support it. You have no proof to back your claim.

Ample proof (according to the above) -- guys having to spend +7 yrs. for the Ph.D. degree (after having already completed the M.S. degree), and one of the guys, a disgruntled and disappointed ex-employee, shooting himself, his wife and the boss afterwards.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
I am quite saddened about this tragic accident and the loss of lives, and did you miss one of my earlier posts (copy-pasted below in blue and the reference for the statement (in italics) in red color). It is clear from the following that Mr. Aggarwal is a Ph.D. student for +8 yrs. (since 2008), Mr. Krishnamoorthi for +7 yrs. (since 2009), and Mr. Sarkar spent +7 yrs. on his Ph.D. after having already completed his M.S. prior to 2006. 

Btw is there a problem with the Ph.D. program at this college, as the students working for Ph.D. seem to be taking unusually long time (e.g. 7 or 8 yrs.):

"On the UCLA website Sarkar is listed as part of the Klug Research Group, a team of six postdoctoral and PhD students researching biomechanics. Two others, besides Sarkar, are of Indian-origin: Ankush Aggarwal, ME Ph.D. student, 2008-, and Shankarjee Krishnamoorthi, ME PhD student, 2009-. Sarkar is the seniormost of the lot with a Phd enrollment going back to 2006 (Ph.D. completed in 2013, after already having M.S. degree), two years longer than any of the others." (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/IIT-Kharagpur-alumnus-kills-US-professor-at-UCLA-over-academic-spat/articleshow/52559222.cms)

As a matter of fact, I did read your original link but it doesn't support your contention that these Indian students were forced to stay with the program longer, not of their own volition, nor is there any evidence of the professor using them as cheap slave labor for his own benefit.

You probably would say the same thing about workers in sweatshops, as not forced or made to stay longer or used as cheap slave labor for owner's benefit.

No, I wouldn't because there is sufficient proof to support it. You have no proof to back your claim.

Ample proof (according to the above) -- guys having to spend +7 yrs. for the Ph.D. degree (after having already completed the M.S. degree), and one of the guys, a disgruntled and disappointed ex-employee, shooting himself, his wife and the boss afterwards.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:
As a matter of fact, I did read your original link but it doesn't support your contention that these Indian students were forced to stay with the program longer, not of their own volition, nor is there any evidence of the professor using them as cheap slave labor for his own benefit.

You probably would say the same thing about workers in sweatshops, as not forced or made to stay longer or used as cheap slave labor for owner's benefit.

No, I wouldn't because there is sufficient proof to support it. You have no proof to back your claim.

Ample proof (according to the above) -- guys having to spend +7 yrs. for the Ph.D. degree (after having already completed the M.S. degree), and one of the guys, a disgruntled and disappointed ex-employee, shooting himself, his wife and the boss afterwards.

What you say about student exploitation is true to SOME extent in second tier or wanna be first tier schools - but not in Top tier schools. UCLA should not be and never short of attracting good students. The field itself is new to many desis - who are switchovers from other traditional engineering - with zero biology background. When someone switches a major sub field, PhD can easily take 5 to 6 years. I dont think it is the case here.

Exploitation is more common among foreign Chinku, iranian and Turkish profs...as there are less and less Indians getting into academics these days (very few desi PhD students compared to your days).

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:
As a matter of fact, I did read your original link but it doesn't support your contention that these Indian students were forced to stay with the program longer, not of their own volition, nor is there any evidence of the professor using them as cheap slave labor for his own benefit.

You probably would say the same thing about workers in sweatshops, as not forced or made to stay longer or used as cheap slave labor for owner's benefit.

No, I wouldn't because there is sufficient proof to support it. You have no proof to back your claim.

Ample proof (according to the above) -- guys having to spend +7 yrs. for the Ph.D. degree (after having already completed the M.S. degree), and one of the guys, a disgruntled and disappointed ex-employee, shooting himself, his wife and the boss afterwards.

What you say about student exploitation is true to SOME extent in second tier or wanna be first tier schools - but not in Top tier schools. UCLA should not be and never short of attracting good students. The field itself is new to many desis - who are switchovers from other traditional engineering - with zero biology background. When someone switches a major sub field, PhD can easily take 5 to 6 years. I dont think it is the case here.

Exploitation is more common among foreign Chinku, iranian and Turkish profs... as there are less and less Indians getting into academics these days (very few desi PhD students compared to your days).

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I don't know specific details about UCLA's ph.d program, but post-bachelors and postmasters typically have about a year's difference at most schools.

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I don't know specific details about UCLA's ph.d program, but post-bachelors and postmasters typically have about a year's difference at most schools.

but you know specific details about at least one other university, don't you? what is the average number of years that a student takes for a ph.d. in engineering, after being awarded a bachelor's degree in a related field? you might also mention the range.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:at u1 - post bachelors (pb) ph.d. average was 5.5 years and probably ranged between 4 and 6 years.
at u2 - pb ph.d. average is 4.5 years and probably ranges between 4 years and 5.5 years.

at u2 the norm is to get a masters along the way. that was not the norm at u1. students who came in with a bachelors degree and whose end goal was a ph.d. just got on with it without bothering with a masters. the longer years for a pb ph.d. is because of the additional graduate level coursework required to prepare oneself for a research project.

these are numbers in two engineering disciplines at two universities i am very familiar with. it's possible that years to (engineering) ph.d. in the US has generally gone down a bit it in the last twenty years because of the larger number of pure computational ph.d.s today than twenty years ago. generally it is my observation that (pure) computational ph.d.s take on average a year shorter than experimental or purely analytical (extremely rare, probably non-existent today but not twenty years ago) ph.d.s.

these are unverified casual observations on my part.

swapna wrote:some recent information on how long it might take to complete a ph.d. in chemical engineering at stanford university:

https://cheme.stanford.edu/admissions/phd/phd-faqs

the range is 4.5 - 5.5 years. the department also says, not surprisingly, "in some cases, it will be a bit less or a bit more."

if we take the mean time for a ph.d. to be 5 years, the upper estimate of 5.5 years to be 2 standard deviations above the mean, and the distribution of time for a ph.d. to be a normal (gaussian) one, 

- the probability that a student will take 5.5 or more years is 0.023 (2.3%);

- the probability that a student will take 6 or more years is less than 0.001 (0.1%).

thus, the probability is nearly zero that a student would take 6, 7, or 8 years for his/her ph.d., at least at stanford's chemical engineering department.

according to this standard, the ucla students mentioned in this thread took an extraordinarily long time for their ph.d.s.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I don't know specific details about UCLA's ph.d program, but post-bachelors and postmasters typically have about a year's difference at most schools.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:at u1 - post bachelors (pb) ph.d. average was 5.5 years and probably ranged between 4 and 6 years.
at u2 - pb ph.d. average is 4.5 years and probably ranges between 4 years and 5.5 years.

at u2 the norm is to get a masters along the way. that was not the norm at u1. students who came in with a bachelors degree and whose end goal was a ph.d. just got on with it without bothering with a masters. the longer years for a pb ph.d. is because of the additional graduate level coursework required to prepare oneself for a research project.

these are numbers in two engineering disciplines at two universities i am very familiar with. it's possible that years to (engineering) ph.d. in the US has generally gone down a bit it in the last twenty years because of the larger number of pure computational ph.d.s today than twenty years ago. generally it is my observation that (pure) computational ph.d.s take on average a year shorter than experimental or purely analytical (extremely rare, probably non-existent today but not twenty years ago) ph.d.s.

these are unverified casual observations on my part.

Generally, I second you.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:at u1 - post bachelors (pb) ph.d. average was 5.5 years and probably ranged between 4 and 6 years.
at u2 - pb ph.d. average is 4.5 years and probably ranges between 4 years and 5.5 years.

at u2 the norm is to get a masters along the way. that was not the norm at u1. students who came in with a bachelors degree and whose end goal was a ph.d. just got on with it without bothering with a masters. the longer years for a pb ph.d. is because of the additional graduate level coursework required to prepare oneself for a research project.

these are numbers in two engineering disciplines at two universities i am very familiar with. it's possible that years to (engineering) ph.d. in the US has generally gone down a bit it in the last twenty years because of the larger number of pure computational ph.d.s today than twenty years ago. generally it is my observation that (pure) computational ph.d.s take on average a year shorter than experimental or purely analytical (extremely rare, probably non-existent today but not twenty years ago) ph.d.s.

these are unverified casual observations on my part.

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:at u1 - post bachelors (pb) ph.d. average was 5.5 years and probably ranged between 4 and 6 years.
at u2 - pb ph.d. average is 4.5 years and probably ranges between 4 years and 5.5 years.

at u2 the norm is to get a masters along the way. that was not the norm at u1. students who came in with a bachelors degree and whose end goal was a ph.d. just got on with it without bothering with a masters. the longer years for a pb ph.d. is because of the additional graduate level coursework required to prepare oneself for a research project.

these are numbers in two engineering disciplines at two universities i am very familiar with. it's possible that years to (engineering) ph.d. in the US has generally gone down a bit it in the last twenty years because of the larger number of pure computational ph.d.s today than twenty years ago. generally it is my observation that (pure) computational ph.d.s take on average a year shorter than experimental or purely analytical (extremely rare, probably non-existent today but not twenty years ago) ph.d.s.

these are unverified casual observations on my part.

thanks for the information; it's consistent with the stanford data, the probabilities given in my earlier post, and the conclusion. that the ucla students took an extraordinarily long time to get their ph.d.s.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:at u1 - post bachelors (pb) ph.d. average was 5.5 years and probably ranged between 4 and 6 years.
at u2 - pb ph.d. average is 4.5 years and probably ranges between 4 years and 5.5 years.

at u2 the norm is to get a masters along the way. that was not the norm at u1. students who came in with a bachelors degree and whose end goal was a ph.d. just got on with it without bothering with a masters. the longer years for a pb ph.d. is because of the additional graduate level coursework required to prepare oneself for a research project.

these are numbers in two engineering disciplines at two universities i am very familiar with. it's possible that years to (engineering) ph.d. in the US has generally gone down a bit it in the last twenty years because of the larger number of pure computational ph.d.s today than twenty years ago. generally it is my observation that (pure) computational ph.d.s take on average a year shorter than experimental or purely analytical (extremely rare, probably non-existent today but not twenty years ago) ph.d.s.

these are unverified casual observations on my part.

thanks for the information; it's consistent with the stanford data, the probabilities given in my earlier post, and the conclusion. that the ucla students took an extraordinarily long time to get their ph.d.s.

Not as as straight forward as you have put. A lot of other factors go into it. Your Gaussian distribution and stddev wont be able to identify those "factors".