PhDs of International Students—The Case of Israeli PhDs

Abstract

Pursuing academic studies in foreign countries is a globally prevalent phenomenon for diverse reasons: earning a degree in high-demand subjects from a prestigious university opens more doors than a diploma earned locally. Earning a degree overseas is an opportunity to expand one’s horizons and gain new experiences and exposure to other cultures. In addition, other personal and/or academic reasons that prevent students from pursuing a degree in their home country, such as age, admission requirements, and difficulty in finding an appropriate supervisor, motivate them to choose a degree program in a foreign country. The current study examines the motives of PhD degree holders who are Israeli residents who completed their doctorate studies overseas and explores the aspirations they hope to achieve through such studies. The study examines several aspects of the profiles of PhD holders who chose to study overseas, including demographic, socioeconomic, academic, financial, and professional, as well as their aims. The study sample comprised 153 PhD holders who earned their PhD degree in the field of education overseas and applied to the Israeli Ministry of Education for accreditation of their degree. The sample focuses on PhD holders in the social sciences and humanities, specifically in education. The study was conducted using the quantitative method and is based on a survey. The findings of the study offer insights into decision makers in higher education in Israel and their efforts to assess the value of the degrees presented for accreditation by PhD holders who earned their degrees overseas.

1. Introduction

The population of international students is growing worldwide [1]. In 2022, over 6.4 million students left their home countries to study overseas, reflecting a four-fold increase since 2000, when 1.6 million students studied outside their home country. In 2000, overseas students were concentrated in only five countries: the US (28%), the UK (14%), Germany (12%), France (8%), and Australia (7%).

Between 2017 and 2022, the 10 countries with the most rapid growth in their international student population included countries from four continents. Second to Canada, Germany has the second highest proportion of international students who remain in the country after completing their degree (40%). Despite the slowdown in its growth in recent years, China is promoting several initiatives that may revive its status as a destination for international students in 2024 [1].

A student may earn a degree from a foreign university in one of two ways: The first includes the student’s stay in the destination country for the entire duration of the program, while in the second, students are registered and study in the destination country yet continue to maintain the center of their lives in their home country.

This study examines the overt and covert motives of Israeli students to pursue a doctorate degree overseas rather than in Israel, and the aspirations they seek to achieve through their studies. The study also examines the features of the PhD holders’ demographic, socio-economic, academic, financial, and professional backgrounds and the goals they aspire to achieve.

Doctorate students require various inputs to pursue their doctorate studies overseas, in terms of financial, academic, family, and employment. These costs also dictate the outputs that students achieve through the degree they earn. The current study examines these inputs and outputs. The findings of this study may assist and promote policymaking in the field of higher education in Israel, and policymakers’ assessment of the high value and costs of degree programs in foreign countries and efforts to promote the return of advanced academic degree holders to Israel.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Israel’s Council of Higher Education (CHE) Policy on Israeli Students Overseas

Israel’s higher education institutions include 48 extensions of overseas institutions that operate under a permit issued by the Council of Higher Education (CHE), which accredits their programs and permits them to issue academic degrees. Without such accreditation, these degrees are not recognized in Israel. The 11th Amendment to the Council of Higher Education Law 1998 limits these permits to a predefined period and stipulates that the CHE has exclusive discretion to make a decision on the validity of a degree. Amendment 12, enacted in 2005, added that the degree of a foreign extension is valid and identical to the corresponding degree issued in Israel, but does not obligate employers to take such degrees into account, and individuals who earned such degrees cannot demand a promotion or a raise in salary based on them [2].

One of the reasons that Israeli students pursue academic studies overseas is the encouragement they receive from universities in Israel and from the CHE, who are interested in enhancing ties with academic institutions overseas. Israeli students apply to the more prestigious universities in the US, such as Harvard and Yale, which increases the prestige of the Israeli universities that sponsor these students [3]. The host country generally also has academic, financial, and social motives to accept foreign students [3].

2.2. Brain Drain and Destination Countries

The debate in Israel on the “brain drain” can be traced to the 1980s, when efforts to attract educated Israelis to return to Israel commenced. In the 1990s and 2000s, this issue emerged once again when government committees recommended offering incentives to researchers willing to return to Israel [4,5,6]. Concurrently, the number of Israeli students studying for advanced degrees overseas increased, mainly in high-demand programs in which admission in Israel is extremely competitive. Most of these students remain overseas to work after completing their degree.

The US is a major destination for Israeli students although its popularity has recently declined in favor of other destinations such as Germany and Italy, which offer more favorable conditions for foreign students. In any case, the demand from Israelis for overseas studies has only increased over time [3,7]. Israel has a dual position on this phenomenon: on the one hand, it encourages globalization, but on the other hand, it is concerned with the brain drain and the probability that Israel’s brightest minds will remain overseas after they complete their studies.

2.3. Encouraging Israeli Students to Study Overseas

According to statistics from the Division of Evaluation of Foreign Academic Degrees in the Ministry of Education, the number of doctoral students overseas applying for their degree accreditation shows an upward trend. The Division handled 159 applications in 2018, 150 in 2019, 200 in 2020, 250 in 2021, and 275 in 2022. In 2023, 308 applications were submitted, yet only 199 were handled due to budgetary constraints. Notably, PhD holders who studied overseas and applied for accreditation are those individuals who wish to work in the public sector. We estimate that the total number of PhD holders is much higher but they typically seek employment in the private sector and have no need to seek national accreditation for the degree they earned overseas.

A 2018 CHE survey indicates that 25% of students are interested in studying overseas, but 35% are not interested due to the high costs, their personal status, low achievements, foreign language challenges, or cultural and religious considerations.

The advantages of overseas studies include exposure to high academic standards, different cultures, and foreign languages. The main shortcomings are the high cost of living and tuition.

Most funding comes from scholarships, the amount of which depends on the student’s academic achievements and financial status. Countries differ in the value of the scholarships they offer and their living costs. Eastern European countries occasionally offer tuition-free or low-cost programs.

Israeli students overseas are not entitled to the same benefits that they are in Israel, and in some cases, their degree is not recognized in Israel, and their investment is for naught [8]. Nonetheless, many students aspire to pursue studies overseas due to their advantages.

Students can earn a degree from a foreign university either by living and studying overseas or by living in Israel and registering with overseas universities. In this case, students study online and make several visits to the overseas institution during their studies.

2.4. High-Demand Fields of Study

There are two groups of fields that students pursue overseas: fields whose prestige has declined and that universities are trying to increase the reputation of through public relations and marketing, and prestigious fields such as medicine and law [9]. A correlation has been found between students’ high achievements and the prestige of their academic institution. The chances of students from prestigious overseas universities gaining employment in their field are three times higher than students who studied in Israel [10]. The public sector also offers benefits and promotion opportunities to graduates of overseas institutions [11]. Students also choose institutions overseas on the basis of their mastery of English or a relevant foreign language [9].

2.5. Overseas Studies of Israeli Students from the Arab Sector

Numerous studies have addressed the challenges and barriers facing Arab students who seek admission to academic institutions in Israel. Studies have described several obstacles, including the standard of the Arab education system [12], a poor mastery of Hebrew and English, and psychometric exams (which constitute a major obstacle due to their cultural bias. The average score of Arab students is lower by 123 points compared to Jewish test-takers. The maximum score is 800 points) [13]. The main obstacle facing Arab students, and especially female Arab students, is, however, a cultural one. Exposure to ethnic, national, and gender diversity on university campuses causes emotional and financial challenges in addition to a sense of alienation and exclusion [14]. As a result, Arab candidates are forced to register for programs that are not their choice, increasing the chances of attribution [15,16]. Arab students apply to institutions with less demanding admission requirements or turn to studying overseas.

One alternative for Arab women who wish to overcome these challenges is to study professions that grant them social prestige in a neighboring Arab country such as Jordan, which is a popular destination due to the language of studies and the geographic proximity [17]. In contrast to other Israeli students who study overseas, Arab students may be considered to be a unique group because although they study in Jordan, they return home every weekend.

One study showed that temporary emigration to acquire an academic education is more prevalent among ethnic minorities who suffer from discrimination and a poor integration policy in their home country [18]. Minority members consider education as an opportunity for exposure to knowledge, society, and culture [19] and a means to avoid unemployment and to promote their national–political struggle in their home country, which is why they attribute great importance to these studies [13]. Nonetheless, these emigrant students remain socially isolated in the destination country and experience tension between their academic identity and their ethnic identity [20].

According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics [21], 13,600 Arabs were awarded academic degrees and diplomas in the academic year of 2021/22. Of these, 8600 Arabs earned an undergraduate degree, 3900 earned a graduate degree, 1000 earned a teaching certificate, and 102 earned a PhD. Women accounted for a higher percentage of Arab students than among Jewish and other students (73.3% and 61.7%, respectively).

• The CHE Budget and Planning Committee operates a holistic multi-year program to promote higher education in the Arab population and increase the Arab population’s representation and integration in higher education [22]. The program includes the RUAD high-school program focuses on exposure to information about higher education and counseling on higher education choices.
• Support programs for students in pre-academic preparatory (mechina) programs and in undergraduate programs, which include language courses, academic, financial, and social support, and designated career centers in academic institutions.
• Irteka scholarships for high-achieving students from disadvantaged socio-economic families and Arab faculty members in advanced degree programs.

The number of Arab students in advanced degree programs in universities has increased significantly. In a decade, the number of doctorate students tripled from 355 in 2008 to 759 in 2018. The number of graduate students has increased by 90%, and one-quarter of graduate students study medicine, engineering, or exact sciences. In 2018, 40% of the doctorate students studied engineering and exact sciences, 20% studied social sciences, and 20% studied humanities and the arts. In 2018, the University of Haifa had the greatest number of Arab doctorate students—241 [23]. In its five-year plan, the CHE’s Budget and Planning Committee defined its goal for 2022: 7% of all doctorate students would come from the Arab community, and statistics show that this goal was almost achieved in full (6.7%) [21].

According to a report prepared at the request of MK Masoud Ganim (Fidelman, 2009), Arab students’ participation in higher education has risen consistently in the past 20 years. There are two main reasons for this: growing recognition in Arab society of the importance of education for the advancement of individuals and the sector in general and the establishment of new academic colleges which increased access to higher education. An especially high percentage of Arab students are enrolled in regional colleges and teaching colleges. There has also been a significant rise in the number of Arab women in higher education. A CBS report [24] analyzed the socio-economic profile of Arabic, Jewish, and other groups of students in Israel in 2020–2021 and indicated that the percentage of academic degree holders was higher among women. Among Jews and others, 41.3% of women had an academic degree, compared with 31.0% of men. A higher percentage of women in the Arab population also had an academic degree compared with men (18.9% and 13.4%, respectively).

In the division of degrees, among Arab holders of undergraduate degrees, the percentage of women is almost twice than of men. In graduate degrees this gap diminishes, and in doctorate degrees the trend is reversed and the percentage of men who hold a doctorate degree is almost twice that of women. In the Jewish sector, a consistent difference of approximately 10% between women and men appears in all degrees, in favor of women.

Arab students either study in Israel or temporarily emigrate for studies overseas, mainly to Jordan. In the past, Arab students studied in Communist Bloc countries funded by the Communist Party. Today, Jordan is the destination of choice for Arab students from Israel pursuing academic studies overseas. This trend stems from a historical process and the increasingly close ties between Israel and Jordan, which facilitate the academic studies of Israeli Arabs in Jordanian universities [17,25].

Over time, the number of Arab students who choose academic studies overseas has grown. A study by the Knesset [26] indicated that in 2012, 9260 Arab Israeli students studied overseas. Of these, 33% studied in Jordan, 27% in the Palestinian Authority, 18% in Moldova, 6.5% in Romania, 4.5% in Italy, and the remainder in other countries. Of all Arab students who studied overseas, 53% studied medicine, pharmacy, and dentistry, 31% studied para-medical professionals, 12% studied engineering, and 4% studied social sciences and humanities.

2.6. Scholarships for Arab Students

The Arab community benefits from extensive support for higher education in the form of scholarships with the aim of promoting equal opportunities and integration into the labor market. The main scholarship programs include the RUAD program, designated scholarships for Bedouin and Druze students, CHE scholarships for advanced degrees, and the longstanding scholarship fund of the Waqf from the Office of the Prime Minister for Muslim students from weak socio-economic families who study professions such as engineering and medicine. This fund was established in the 1960s, and it has distributed NIS 1.5 million to 907 students [21]. In Jordan, students are eligible for the King’s scholarships and for flexible study schedules that include studies on Fridays and Saturdays [8].

2.7. Drawbacks of Overseas Studies for the State of Israel

The Shochat Committee was established to address the consequences of the rapid growth in academic institutions and students in 2000–2009, alongside the decline in budgets and the demand for academic faculty [2]. This situation led to government decisions designed to support the higher education system in general and specifically to encourage Israeli researchers living abroad to return to Israel. Among other decisions, the government decided to establish an inter-ministerial committee to address the situation, create a database of researchers and scientists living overseas, and develop a plan to establish research excellence centers to attract them.

The first step the government took was to create a statutory definition of the status of a student who resides overseas after earning a degree and decides to return to Israel. If more than two years have elapsed since the individual earned their degree, they are entitled to the status of “returning student”, which is similar to the status of a “returning resident”, with some modifications.

The main reason for the brain drain is Israel’s inability to compete with the terms of employment offered overseas. Israeli students and holders of advanced degrees are subject to strong temptations to remain overseas after their studies, especially in view of the more favorable employment opportunities and quality of life. According to a report by the Shoresh Institute, Israeli academics are at the top of the list of countries whose nationals comprise the foreign academic faculty in the US. These are people who are in high demand worldwide, but their earnings in Israel are low [3,27]. Still, researchers frequently return to Israel for financial reasons because they miss their family and friends or are attracted by an “absorption basket” of financial aid. The government is aware of this situation and invests in efforts to return degree holders to Israel. The success of these efforts depends on the standard of living to which the students became accustomed overseas after completing their studies and finding employment.

2.8. Doctoral Studies in Higher Education Institutions in Israel

The PhD degree is the highest degree a student can earn, and students do so mainly when they wish to pursue an academic career, a career in research, and advance in their academic education. The PhD degree refers to the enormous amount of knowledge that a student acquires [28].

Completing a doctorate program is a necessary condition for engaging in research and teaching in an academic institution and in other settings. In most cases, the admission requirements for a PhD program include a master’s degree completed with a minimum average grade of 85, and in some cases, the grade on the research work also affects admission. Additional admission requirements include an interview and the identification of an academic advisor who will supervise the doctoral student in writing the research work that is an integral part of the doctorate program. In some programs, candidates must also present letters of reference. Candidates must submit a proposal, and when the proposal is approved, they begin writing their research work.

In a doctorate program, students are required to complete advanced courses, pass comprehensive exams that test their knowledge in the field of their research, and prepare a doctoral dissertation. Specific requirements vary according to the program or the university [28]. Doctorate studies extend to between four and seven years, and they focus on the production of an original piece of research.

There are four main reasons that students make a decision to enter a doctorate program:

• Achieve expertise in a field of knowledge—individuals who earn a doctorate have the highest possible education in their field and are therefore frequently considered to be true experts in that field.
• Contribution of original research—enhancing the knowledge in a specific field is an achievement. Preparing a doctorate dissertation gives one an opportunity to make a valuable, original contribution that enhances other people’s understanding of a topic or presents a completely new perspective on a topic.
• Expanding employment opportunities—a doctorate dissertation can train one for work in academia or research but may also expand one’s skills or elevate one’s prospects for jobs that do not necessarily require a PhD degree. A PhD degree may convey to potential employers that the candidate is knowledgeable, conscientious, and disciplined.
• Elevating income potential—on average, people with a PhD can earn more than people with an undergraduate degree in the same field. The median weekly income of PhD holders in the US is USD1885 compared to USD 1305 for undergraduate degree holders [29]. In the long term, a PhD leads to significant financial gains over one’s lifetime. An individual with an undergraduate degree will earn an average of USD 2.2 million in their lifetime, but an individual with a PhD will earn an average of USD 4 million [30].

The current study aims to carry out the following:

• Analyze the personal backgrounds, along with the academic and employment histories, of individuals who earned their doctorate abroad. This includes assessing aspects such as age, residential locations, and their professional situations both before and after obtaining their PhD;
• Explore the various personal, professional, and academic reasons that influenced individuals to pursue their doctorate overseas. This examination will cover motives related to career advancement, academic aspirations, financial considerations, program duration, and the requirements of their respective employment sectors;
• Detail the educational journey of these individuals, including their choice of country for their doctorate program, the duration of their studies, the process of advisor selection, and the financial aspects of their education such as tuition and travel frequency;
• Assess whether the respondents would make the same decision to study abroad again, considering their current financial situations and the relationship between their age and the duration of their study;
• Explore the long-term effects of obtaining a PhD abroad on their professional lives and personal development, focusing on how these elements correlate with demographic variables such as age.

2.9. Research Questions:

For PhD holders:

• What was the contribution of your PhD to your professional life?
• What was the contribution of your PhD to your employment?
• Are you satisfied with your doctorate studies overseas?
• Did earning a PhD overseas improve your knowledge and research competencies?

3. Method

3.1. Research Population

Participants were 153 PhD holders who elected to study for a doctorate degree in education in an academic institution overseas, and who applied to the Israeli Ministry of Education for accreditation of their degree. Participants’ ages ranged from 31 to 70 years (M = 50.05, SD = 8.71).

The majority of participants were not Jewish (52.3%) and the remainder were Jewish (47.7%). The majority of participants were women (54.2%) and the remainder were men (45.8%). The non-Jewish participant group was equally divided between men and women, while the Jewish group comprised 31 men (42.5%) and 42 women (57.5%).

Most participants were born in Israel (88.2%) and the remainder were born elsewhere (11.8%). The majority were married (82.4%). Approximately one-half were religious (47.1%), and over one-third were traditional (36.6%). The majority lived in Israel’s geographic periphery (63.4%), and over one-third (36.6%) lived in central Israel. Approximately two thirds of participants reported a moderate–high income (66.7%).

3.2. Instruments

The current study used the quantitative method and a self-report questionnaire developed by the researchers. The questionnaire included various questions about the participants’ demographics, their education, and their employment.

3.3. Procedure

Data collection commenced in July 2022 and ended in March 2023. During this period, efforts were invested to recruit as many participants as possible. On 10 July 2022, online questionnaires were emailed to 160 PhD holders who earned their degrees overseas. The email message emphasized the importance of their participation in the research.

4. Results

Here, we present a quantitative section that refers to the analysis of the questionnaires. This section is divided into two parts: first, we present the differences between PhD holders from the Jewish and Arab sectors. In addition, we present the differences between male and female PhD holders across the study variables. Finally, we present the correlations between the variables.

4.1. Differences between the Study Groups

With the aim of examining the research hypotheses related to differences between PhD holders from the Jewish and non-Jewish sectors and the differences between male and female PhD holders, we conducted an analysis based on the following research variables: demographics, education, and employment.

4.2. Demographics

4.2.1. Age

With the aim of examining the age and gender differences between PhD holders in the Jewish and non-Jewish sectors, we performed a 2 × 2 (sector × gender) two-way MANOVA. We found a statistically significant difference between the two sectors, F(1, 153) = 15.32, p < 0.001, Eta² = 0.09, but no statistically significant difference between men and women, F(1, 153) = 0.17, p > 0.05, Eta² = 0.00. Furthermore, no statistically significant interaction between the sector and gender effects was found, F(1, 153) = 0.62, p > 0.05, Eta² = 0.00.

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of participants’ age in the Jewish vs. non-Jewish sectors.

	Jewish Sector		Non-Jewish Sector
Gender	M	SD	M	SD	F
Male	52.71	9.21	47.03	7.54	15.32 ***
Female	52.93	9.39	47.93	6.91

*** p < 0.001.

presents the means and standard deviations of participants’ age in the Jewish vs. non-Jewish sectors, and results of the analyses of variance for each variable separately.

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of PhD holders’ age by destination country and gender.

	Men		Women
Destination Country	M	SD	M	SD	F
Jordan	47.17	7.80	48.11	7.04	4.56 *
Eastern Europe	50.45	9.80	53.12	9.03
Western Europe/America	53.70	6.93	50.60	11.40

Note: * indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05).

indicates that PhD holders in the Jewish sector are older (men—52.71, women—52.93) than PhD holders in the non-Jewish sector (men—47.03, women—47.93).

4.2.2. Residential Location

To examine these differences, we conducted χ² analyses. We found a statistically significant difference between Jewish and non-Jewish PhD holders, χ² = 11.93, p < 0.001. Our analyses show that approximately one-half (49.3%) of PhD holders from the Jewish sector live in the geographic periphery and approximately one-half (50.7%) live in central Israel. The majority (76.3%) of PhD holders from the non-Jewish sector live in the geographic periphery and approximately one-fourth (23.8%) live in central Israel. Furthermore, these analyses found no statistically significant difference in residential location between men and women, χ² = 0.64, p > 0.0. The analyses indicate that the majority of the male participants (60.0%) and the majority of the female participants (66.3%) live in the geographic periphery.

4.3. Motives for Selecting an Overseas Doctorate Program

Participants were asked about the motives that affected their decision to pursue a doctorate overseas.

The results indicate that the main motives for pursuing a doctorate overseas are employment (25.8%) and the difficulty of finding an advisor in Israel (22.2%). Another important motive is culture (20.3%), which was followed by the prestige that accompanies a PhD earned overseas (19.0%) and language considerations (18%). In our study sample, the main motive of 16% was a desire to improve their financial status, and a similar proportion (15.0%) were motivated by the difficulty of gaining admission to an academic institution in Israel. Less than one-tenth (9.8%) noted the difficulty caused by the learning method in Israel. Some additional motives were considered to be important but were less frequently mentioned, including the fact that the program is limited in time (6.5%), family considerations (6.5%), living in the destination country (5.2%), desired topic (5.1%), psychometric score (3.3%), scholarship (3.0%), interest (2.4%), and social–national considerations (2.0%).

4.4. The Destination Country of the Overseas Doctorate Program

The analysis of the data indicates that 45.1% of participants selected Jordan as their destination country, 41.2% selected Eastern Europe, and only 13.1% selected Western Europe or America for their doctorate studies. χ² analyses were conducted to examine the differences between the Jewish and non-Jewish PhD holders and found a statistically significant difference between the sectors, χ² = 113.84, p < 0.001; in other words, 75.0% of PhD holders in the Jewish sector studied in Eastern Europe and one quarter studied in Western Europe or America. PhD holders from the non-Jewish sector showed a different trend: the majority studied in Jordan, a minority (11.3%) studied in Eastern Europe, and only 2.5% studied in Western Europe or America. The Ariel Presentation analysis also found no statistically significant difference between men and women, χ² = 0.28, p > 0.05. In total, 43.5% of men studied in Jordan, and a similar proportion (42.0%) studied in Eastern Europe. Only 14.5% of male PhD holders studied in Western Europe or America. Among women, a higher proportion studied in Jordan (47.0%), and the proportion of women who studied in Eastern Europe (41.0%) was similar to the proportion of men. Among female participants, only 12.0% studied in Western Europe or America.

We also examined whether male and female PhD holders’ destinations for doctorate studies varied by age. A two-way 2 × 2 (gender × destination country) MANOVA was performed to examine differences between men and women in this respect and across three destination countries. No statistically significant differences were found between men and women, F(1, 153) = 0.01, p > 0.05, Eta² = 0.00. However, a statistically significant difference was found across destination countries, F(1, 153) = 4.56, p < 0.05, Eta² = 0.06. Finally, no statistically significant interaction effect of gender × destination was found, F(1, 153) = 0.87, p > 0.05, Eta² = 0.01. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of men and women’s destination countries by age and the results of various variance analyses for each variable separately.

Table 2 indicates that women who chose Jordan as the destination country for their doctoral studies were older (M = 48.11, SD = 7.04) than men who chose Jordan as the destination country for their doctoral studies (M = 47.17, SD = 7.80).

Furthermore, women who chose Eastern Europe as the destination country for their doctoral studies were significantly older (M = 53.12, SD = 9.03) than men who chose the same region (M = 50.45, SD = 9.8). The reverse trend is indicated with respect to Western Europe/America. Men who chose Western Europe or America as the destination country for their doctoral studies were significantly older (M = 53.70, SD = 6.93) than women who made the same choice (M = 50.60, SD = 11.40). The difference was statistically significant.

4.5. Duration of the Doctorate Program

A two-way 2 × 2 (gender × sector) MANOVA was performed to examine differences between Jewish and non-Jewish PhD holders and between men and women with respect to the duration of their doctorate program. A statistically significant difference was found between the two sectors, F(1, 153) = 11.81, p < 0.001, Eta² = 0.07. No statistically significant difference was found between men and women, F(1, 153) = 0.42, p > 0.05, Eta² = 0.00, and no significant gender × sector interaction effect was found, F(1, 153) = 1.29, p > 0.05, Eta² = 0.01.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations of PhD holders’ program duration by sector and gender.

	Jewish Sector		Non-Jewish Sector
Gender	M	SD	M	SD	F
Male	4.69	1.74	3.78	0.96	11.81 ***
Female	4.33	1.15	3.87	0.98

Note: *** indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001).

presents the means and standard deviations of the doctorate program durations of PhD holders from the Jewish and non-Jewish sector, and the results of various variance analyses for each variable separately.

Table 3 indicates that the duration of the doctorate programs of PhD holders from the Jewish sector (Men—4.69, Women—4.33) was longer than the duration of the doctorate programs of PhD holders from the non-Jewish sector (Men—0.78, Women—3.87).

Furthermore, to examine the difference in program duration between men and women and across the destination countries, we performed a two-way 2 × 3 (gender × destination country) MANOVA. No statistically significant difference was found in the program duration between men and women, F(1, 153) = 0.07, p > 0.05, Eta² = 0.00, although a statistically significant difference was found across the destination countries, F(1, 153) = 27.04, p < 0.001, Eta² = 0.27. Finally, no statistically significant interaction effect of gender × destination country was found, F(1, 153) = 0.98, p > 0.05, Eta² = 0.01.

Table 4. Means and standard deviations of PhD holders’ program duration by gender and destination country.

	Destination Country
	Jordan		Eastern Europe		Western Europe/America
Gender	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F
Male	3.48	0.50	4.32	1.38	5.50	1.94	27.04 ***
Female	3.74	0.72	4.07	0.79	5.65	1.76

*** p < 0.001.

presents the means and standard deviations of the doctorate program duration of men and women PhD holders by destination country, and the results of various variance analyses for each variable separately.

Table 4 indicates that the duration of the program for female PhD holders who chose Jordan was longer (M = 3.74, SD = 0.72) compared to the duration of the program for male PhD holders who chose Jordan as their destination country (M = 3.48, SD = 0.50). The duration of the program for female PhD holders who chose Western Europe/America was longer (M = 5.65, SD = 1.76) compared to the duration of the program for male PhD holders who chose Western Europe/America as their destination country (M = 5.50, SD = 1.94); however the reverse trend appears with respect to Eastern Europe, where the duration of the program for male PhD holders is longer (M = 4.32, SD = 1.38) than the duration of the program for female PhD holders (M = 4.07, SD = 0.79).

4.6. Selection of an Advisor

Selecting a doctoral advisor is a significant factor in the decision to study overseas. To examine the differences between PhD holders from the Jewish and non-Jewish sectors in their process of selecting a doctorate advisor (incidental or intentional) we conducted χ² analyses. No statistically significant differences were found, χ² = 0.57, p > 0.05. The analyses indicate that 64.7% of the participants (61.6% from the Jewish sector and 67.5% from the non-Jewish sector) reported that their selection of an advisor was not random.

We conducted χ² analyses to examine differences in the advisor selection process between male and female PhD holders and found no statistically significant differences, χ² = 3.75, p > 0.05. Our findings show that 72.9% of the male participants and 57.8% of the female participants reported that the selection was not random.

In response to a request to state the reason for the selection of their advisor, 19.6% of participants stated that it was a random choice, 13.1% stated that they selected an advisor according to their research topic, and a similar proportion, 13.1%, selected their advisor based on the advisor’s knowledge and professional expertise, and only 12.4% stated that their advisor was selected for them by the academic institution in which they pursued their doctorate degree.

4.7. Advisor from Israel or from the Destination Country

To examine whether PhD holders from the Jewish and non-Jewish sectors differed in having an advisor from Israel or their destination country, we conducted χ² analyses. We found that 63.0% of PhD holders from the Jewish sector and a similar proportion (62.5%) of PhD holders from the non-Jewish sector had an advisor from their destination country. It is interesting to note that approximately one-quarter (24.7%) of PhD holders from the Jewish section had two advisors (one from Israel and one from their destination country), and slightly over one-quarter (27.5%) of PhD holders from the non-Jewish sector had a single advisor from Israel.

No statistically significant difference was found between male and female PhD holders, χ² = 0.59, p > 0.05. Approximately two-thirds (65.1%) of female PhD holders and a smaller proportion of male PhD holders (60.0%) had an advisor from their destination country. Similar proportions of male and female PhD holders had an advisor from Israel or two advisors (22.9% and 17.1%, respectively, for men; 16.9% and 18.1%, respectively, for women).

Participants were also asked whether they had online meetings with their advisor. No statistically significant difference was found between PhD holders from the Jewish and non-Jewish sector. A similarly high percentage of PhD holders from the Jewish sector (82.2%) and the non-Jewish sector (81.3%) reported having had online meetings with their advisors. No statistically significant difference was found between male and female PhD holders regarding online meetings (75.7% and 86.7%, respectively).

4.8. Tuition

The findings of the χ² analyses show a statistically significant difference between PhD holders from the Jewish and non-Jewish sectors regarding tuition funding, χ² = 9.40, p < 0.01. While 83.6% of PhD holders from the Jewish sector paid for their own tuition, only 61.3% of PhD holders from the non-Jewish sector did so. A reverse trend was found with respect to partial or no tuition payments. More than one-third (38.7%) of PhD holders from the non-Jewish sector paid either partial tuition or no tuition, and only one-sixth (16.4%) of PhD holders from the Jewish sector paid partial tuition or no tuition. These findings confirm H3d.

No statistically significant difference regarding tuition payment was found between men and women, χ² = 1.44, p > 0.05. Approximately two-thirds of male PhD holders (67.1%) and only one-third (32.9%) paid either partial tuition or no tuition. Among women, a higher percentage (75.9%) paid full tuition, and only one quarter (24.1%) paid partial or no tuition, confirming H4d.

4.9. Frequency of Travel Overseas

To examine differences in the frequency of their overseas travel for their doctorate studies between PhD holders from the Jewish and non-Jewish sectors and between men and women, we conducted χ² analyses. A statistically significant difference was found between the Jewish and non-Jewish sectors, χ² = 88.71, p < 0.001. See

Table 5. Frequency of overseas travel of Jewish-sector and non-Jewish-sector PhD holders.

	Jewish Sector		Non-Jewish Sector
Frequency	N	%	N	%	χ2
Every weekend	2	3.4	64	49.3	88.71 ***
Several times a year	57	96.6	11	14.7

*** p < 0.001.

.

Table 5 indicates that most PhD holders from the Jewish sector (96.6%) traveled several a times a year for the purpose of their doctoral studies. One half of the PhD holders from the non-Jewish sector (49.3%) traveled every weekend. This difference was statistically significant. No statistically significant difference was found between PhD holders from the Jewish and non-Jewish sectors. Slightly more than one-half of men PhD holders (52.6%) flew overseas several times a year for the purpose of their doctoral studies and 47.4% flew every weekend. Among female PhD holders the trend is reversed: approximately one-half of female PhD holders (50.6%) flew every weekend, and one-half (49.4%) flew several times a year. The difference is not statistically significant.

Participants were also asked about the challenges they experienced during their doctorate program. Six challenges were noted: (a) challenges related to travel and border crossing (mentioned by PhD holders from the non-Jewish sector only); (b) stress and pressure; (c) language; (d) costs; (e) COVID-related challenges; (f) distance from home and homesickness.

The results indicate that approximately one-half of participants (44.4%, all from the non-Jewish sector) noted that the most difficult challenge of their overseas doctorate program was related to traveling and border crossing experiences. All participants mentioned stress and pressure (13.7%) and language difficulties (13.1%). A very small proportion of participants (7.2%) noted challenges related to the costs of the doctorate program. Only a few participants (3.3%) noted COVID-related challenges, and 2.6% noted that the distance and their sense of loneliness were challenging during their doctorate studies. When participants were asked whether they were required to complete additional studies in Israel in order for their overseas degree to be recognized in Israel, the majority (83.0%) stated that they were not required to do so.

4.10. Would They Make the Same Decision Again?

Participants were asked whether they would now make the same decision to pursue a doctorate degree overseas. To examine differences between PhD holders from the Jewish and non-Jewish sectors, we conducted χ² analyses. Our findings show a statistically significant difference between the sectors, χ² = 8.00, p < 0.01: 82.9% of PhD holders from the Jewish sector and 61.4% of PhD holders from the non-Jewish sectors would make the same decision to study overseas again.

To examine the differences between male and female PhD holders, we conducted χ² analyses. No statistically significant difference emerged between the sectors, χ² = 0.20, p > 0.05. In total, 70.3% of male PhD holders and 73.7% of female PhD holders would make the same decision to study overseas again.

4.11. Associations between the Study Groups

To examine associations between the study variables, Pearson correlations were performed between the continuous research variables and are shown in

Table 6. Pearson correlations between continuous research variables.

Variable	Age	Financial Situation	Years of Study	Cost of the Degree	Other Expenses
Age
Financial situation	0.18 *
Years of study	0.18 *	0.03
Cost of the degree	0.11	−0.03	−0.06
Other expenses	−0.08	−0.10	−0.07	0.30 ***

* p < 0.05. *** p < 0.001.

.

Table 7. Satisfaction levels of PhD Holders with various aspects of their overseas study experience.

Aspect of Satisfaction	Very Dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Neutral	Satisfied	Very Satisfied	Average Score
Academic Content	2%	3%	5%	35%	55%	4.4
Quality of Supervision	1%	4%	10%	40%	45%	4.3
Resource Availability	5%	7%	8%	50%	30%	4.0
Integration into Academic Community	3%	6%	15%	35%	41%	4.1

indicates statistically significant associations between participants’ age and financial situation, and between their age and the number of years of education. Participants with a strong financial situation were older, and older participants had a greater number of years of study. A statistically significant positive association was found between the cost of the degree and the related expenses. The higher the cost of the degree, the higher the related expenses.

Regarding the contribution of their PhD to their professional life, the findings indicate a profound and multifaceted impact. According to the survey data, 82% of participants reported that earning a PhD from an overseas institution significantly enhanced their career opportunities. This enhancement was not merely in terms of job availability, but also in their ability to compete in an increasingly globalized market where advanced qualifications and international experience are highly valued. Participants detailed how this educational achievement opened doors to new job markets and sectors that were previously inaccessible, citing specific examples such as eligibility for senior academic roles, leading complex research projects, and consulting in educational policy.

A smaller portion of the respondents, about 16%, indicated that their PhD from an overseas institution played a crucial role in securing leadership roles within their respective organizations, including universities, research institutes, and educational consultancies. These roles, as described by the participants, involved elevated responsibilities such as managing departments, overseeing projects, and contributing to policy development. This advancement was attributed to their refined research capabilities and leadership skills acquired during their international studies.

The increased respect among peers was quantified by participants’ self-reports of improved professional interactions, invitations to speak at international conferences, and increased solicitations to participate in collaborative research initiatives. This respect translated into tangible outcomes such as nominations to prestigious professional bodies and award committees.

Moreover, the survey revealed that the professional growth experienced by these PhD holders also contributed to their personal development, with many noting improvements in skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, and intercultural communication. These competencies were not only crucial in their professional roles but also enhanced their contributions to the academic and research communities.

To comprehensively evaluate the satisfaction of PhD holders with their overseas studies, the survey included multiple dimensions of their academic and personal experiences. The satisfaction metrics were measured on a scale from one (very dissatisfied) to five (very satisfied), encompassing aspects such as academic content, supervision quality, resource availability, integration into the academic community, and overall personal development. The results, presented in the table below, demonstrate a high level of satisfaction among the respondents, reflecting positively on the perceived value of their overseas doctoral education.

As indicated in Table 7, the majority of PhD holders reported high levels of satisfaction with their doctoral studies overseas. Specifically, 90% of respondents felt satisfied or very satisfied with the academic content, and a similar percentage was reported for personal development. The quality of supervision and integration into the academic community also received high satisfaction scores, reinforcing the value of the international academic environment. Although resource availability scored slightly lower, it still reflected generally positive experiences. The overall satisfaction score of 4.3 suggests that the international PhD experience was highly favorable for most participants.

The impact of overseas PhD programs on enhancing the knowledge and research competencies of the graduates was assessed through a detailed survey. Respondents rated their perceived improvement in key areas of research and academic skills on a scale from one (no improvement) to five (significant improvement). The following table summarizes these self-assessments, providing insights into the specific areas where the overseas PhD experience has been most beneficial.”

Table 8. Self-assessed improvement in research competencies of PhD holders following overseas education.

Research Competencies	No Improvement	Slight Improvement	Moderate Improvement	Significant Improvement	Exceptional Improvement	Average Score
Theoretical Knowledge	3%	5%	12%	50%	30%	4.0
Practical Application	4%	6%	15%	45%	30%	3.9
Data Analysis Skills	2%	4%	10%	55%	29%	4.1
Research Methodology	1%	3%	14%	40%	42%	4.2
Publication and Writing Skills	5%	7%	13%	45%	30%	3.9
Critical Thinking	2%	3%	10%	48%	37%	4.1
Collaboration and Networking	4%	5%	20%	35%	36%	4.0

indicates substantial improvements across various research competencies due to completing PhD studies abroad. Notably, areas like ‘Research Methodology’ and ‘Data Analysis Skills’ scored the highest improvements, with average scores above 4.0, indicating that the training and exposure provided by the overseas institutions significantly enhanced these crucial skills. ‘Critical Thinking’ also saw notable gains, reflecting the broad and intensive research challenges faced by the students. While all categories showed improvement, practical application and publication skills had slightly lower scores but still indicated significant growth. This pattern suggests that the overseas PhD experience was instrumental in broadening both the theoretical and practical aspects of the respondents’ professional capabilities.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to comprehensively explore the multifaceted experiences of Israeli PhD holders who pursued their degrees abroad, focusing on their backgrounds, motivations, the number of years they studied, and the outcomes of their studies. The findings from the quantitative analyses provide a rich tapestry of insights into the complexities of obtaining a PhD from international institutions and the profound impacts these experiences have on professional and personal development.

Most participants reported that obtaining a PhD overseas significantly enhanced their career opportunities, with 82% noting marked improvements in job market competitiveness and eligibility for higher academic and complex research roles. A smaller yet significant portion attributed their acquisition of leadership roles to their overseas PhD, underscoring the value of international education in fostering advanced research capabilities and leadership skills. These findings suggest that international doctoral programs are not just academic pursuits but pivotal career advancements that open doors to significant professional opportunities.

Regarding satisfaction with their doctoral studies, the high scores across multiple facets of the PhD experience—including academic content, quality of supervision, and personal development—indicate that overseas doctoral programs are highly valued by the graduates. The overall satisfaction score of 4.3 out of 5 reinforces the perceived worth of these international academic experiences. This high level of satisfaction likely reflects the quality of education and support systems available at international institutions, which not only meet but often exceed the expectations of students.

The data also demonstrated significant gains across various research skills, particularly in research methodology and data analysis. This improvement is crucial, as these skills are fundamental to successful academic and professional pursuits in science and academia. The enhanced critical thinking and collaboration skills highlight the broad, applicable training provided by international programs, preparing graduates for diverse challenges and roles in the global academic and research landscapes.

The demographic analyses revealed notable differences in age and residential locations between sectors, with older participants and those from the Jewish sector more likely to engage in doctoral studies abroad. The motivations for pursuing doctoral education varied, with significant emphasis being placed on overcoming local academic limitations and advancing career prospects. The choice of destination country also reflected broader cultural and academic considerations, suggesting that students are strategically choosing their places of study based on a combination of academic offerings and personal or cultural preferences. Our findings indicate a trend of participants completing their doctoral degrees at an advanced age. This observation prompts an examination of the motivations and circumstances that lead to such decisions. Our analysis reveals several factors contributing to this phenomenon. Firstly, career advancement plays a significant role. For many professionals in the mid- to late careers, acquiring a PhD is seen as a means to advance further, potentially unlocking higher-level positions and opportunities that were previously inaccessible. In some cases, these individuals may have reached a plateau in their careers where a doctoral degree provides a new avenue for growth and recognition. Secondly, personal fulfilment is a strong motivator. Individuals often pursue doctoral studies later in life as a way to fulfil long-held academic aspirations or personal goals. This is particularly prevalent in fields such as education, where lifelong learning and personal enrichment are highly valued. For these individuals, obtaining a PhD is not merely a professional requirement but a personal achievement that brings intellectual satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment. The increasing availability of flexible doctoral programs has made it easier for older adults to undertake doctoral studies without disrupting their professional and personal lives. Furthermore, our data suggest that pursuing a tertiary degree in education at an advanced age often aligns with the professional contexts of the individuals involved. Educators and administrators may seek to enhance their pedagogical skills or gain specialized knowledge that can be directly applied to their current roles. For some, this is also a strategic move to transition into consultancy, policymaking, or higher administrative positions within the educational sector.

A substantial majority of the respondents indicated they would make the same decision to study abroad again, suggesting a strong positive reinforcement of the decision to pursue education overseas despite the challenges mentioned, such as travel and financial costs. This sentiment is particularly telling of the lasting value that these experiences hold for individuals.

The results highlight a disparity in the standards and outcomes of degrees obtained from different regions, notably between Eastern Europe, the U.S., and Jordan. Participants who studied in Eastern Europe and the U.S. generally reported higher satisfaction and perceived their education as more directly applicable and recognized within the Israeli system, aligning with global academic standards and employment expectations. In contrast, degrees from Jordan, while fulfilling academic and professional criteria for some, were seen as less aligned with the expectations within Israel’s academic and professional landscapes. This divergence may reflect differing academic standards, curriculum focus, or educational practices across these geographical areas. The findings suggest a need for a more nuanced recognition and evaluation process within the Israeli education system, which can more accurately reflect the quality and relevance of international degrees based on the region of acquisition.

The predominance of East European degrees among the Jewish participants in this study is a noteworthy finding that warrants further exploration. Our analysis revealed that 75% of the Jewish PhD holders studied in Eastern Europe, compared to a mere 25% who pursued their degrees in Western Europe or America. This disparity can be attributed to several factors, including the nature of the programs offered, cost considerations, and the structure of the educational system in these regions.

Many Eastern European universities provide specialized programs that are tailored to meet the needs of international students. These programs often include options for remote study, combined with a few mandatory physical visits. This flexibility allows students to maintain their professional and personal commitments in their home country while pursuing their doctoral studies. In contrast, Western European and American institutions typically require a full-time residency, which can be a significant barrier for older students or those with established careers and families.

The cost of education in Eastern Europe is generally lower compared to Western Europe and the United States. Tuition fees, living expenses, and other related costs are often significantly reduced, making it a more financially viable option for many students. This affordability is particularly appealing to those who may not have access to substantial financial resources or scholarships.

The historical and cultural ties between Israel and certain Eastern European countries also play a role. Many Jewish families have roots in Eastern Europe, and there is a long-standing tradition of academic exchange between these regions. This familiarity can make Eastern European institutions more attractive to Israeli students.

Participants reported attending well-known universities in countries such as Hungary, Poland, and Romania. These institutions are recognized for their robust academic programs and their ability to cater to the needs of international students. They often provide extensive support services, including assistance with visa applications, accommodation, and integration into the academic community.

The implications of these findings for educational policy and practice are profound. Institutions aiming to attract international students must understand the factors that contribute to satisfaction and professional success post-graduation. Moreover, the insights into the motivations and outcomes can help tailor recruitment strategies and program offerings to better meet the needs and expectations of prospective students.

6. Limitations and Future Research

While this study provides valuable insights, it is not without limitations. The sample is specific to Israeli PhD holders, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Future research should consider comparative studies across different national backgrounds to explore universal and unique factors in international doctoral education.