Three, six, twelve or eighteen months: choosing a program length
Longer isn't automatically better. Match the length to the gap between where you are and where you're going.
, 5 minute read
When people compare programs they often start with length, as if it were a quality setting. It's better to treat it as a measure of distance: how far you need to travel from your current skills to the work you want to do.
Three months: adding a skill
Short programs suit people who already work in or next to the field and need one specific capability, such as an engineer who needs to deploy models reliably or an analyst moving into Power BI. They assume the foundations are already there.
Six months: changing specialism
Six months is enough to build real competence in one domain from solid foundations, with a portfolio to show for it. It suits career switchers who can already program or analyse data, and professionals moving sideways into a new specialism.
Twelve and eighteen months: depth and breadth
Longer programs add electives, harder projects and more theory. They make sense when the target role expects depth: senior data science, research engineering, architecture. Eighteen months adds research methods and production systems at scale, and only exists where the subject genuinely needs it.
A quick test
- List three tasks from job descriptions you're aiming for.
- For each, ask whether you could do it today with some help, or wouldn't know where to start.
- Mostly "with some help": a shorter program. Mostly "wouldn't know where to start": a longer one, or a foundation program first.
PathFinder applies a version of this test to your answers and suggests a starting point. It's worth checking the result with an admissions advisor, who can look at your background in more detail.