First, there seems to be the idea that a PhD's place is in academia. Where is this idea even coming from? Back in a different time I got a degree in chemistry in Germany, and the idea was that you would sign up with one if the chemical companies. The degree program was very thorough and broad and lasted five years, and you would start work, be given a mentor, and do anything chemical. Your degree equipped you to do that, it was very broad, if it was chemistry you had heard of it. A PhD was required, chemical technicians would be trained on the job. The lesson here is that a broad degree makes you more employable, but you cannot sell this idea when students have to raise their own funds to pay for their degree and when state and federal funding lines for universities keep shrinking.
But what happened was several things: the great monoliths that in Germany had a standing like Microsoft or Google were broken up and sold off (except the BASF), and the perennial pharmco crisis started.
There is another lesson, I think: deep science requires deep pockets that only a large, established company can provide. Startups are no solution: it seems that the big pharmcos are now turning into brokers that acquire startups, in-house projects aren't done any longer, instead you acquire a startup, and testing is contracted out abroad. Another problem: no one cooks up their own compounds any longer, you contract out to a Chinese contract shop that employs PhDs from China. I'm not sure if this is cheaper or better (there is something to be said for short communication lines - just walk up a floor), but it is current practice.
Also: at my second-tier state school the quality of applicants started really going up after 2009, when the crisis had settled in. To me this means that private jobs have disappeared, and universities aren't hiring much either.
This is an economic problem, and I really can't see how turning universities into trade schools could be helpful to create jobs. Neither do I see how increased reliance on privately-funded research institutes would help - no matter how big their endowment they would still be competing for external funding, the biggest source of which is the NIH. But the NIH keeps getting its funding cut.
There's the other problem: the government isn't funding science as much as it ought to.
First, there seems the idea that a PhD's place is in academia. Where is this idea even coming from?
It's in the air, in the environment. Perhaps your circumstances are different, but in the US the overproduction of Ph.D.s is sufficient to sustain at least one business: The Versatile Ph.D. http://versatilephd.com/.
The online blogging on the phenomenon is hard to miss.
(The blog has disappeared. 401 - Authentication required)
Yes, this is this systemic problem in the US. It started with many second-tier schools opening grad schools to compete for NIH and NSF funds, which at that time were freely available. The career path for those graduates would be to go into teaching at other second-tier schools, or at four-year colleges.
But now, after the crisis struck, even top-tier graduates have problems, and they are now being hired by second-tier schools to compete for less external funding. This leaves no way out for the graduates of weaker programs.
Another problem: the quality of the applicants for PhD at second-tier schools. Man, it's awful, it is. Top tier schools are as large as they want to be, and they hire whomever they like. Lesser schools try to make to with the rest that didn't get into the top places, and it's no fun, let me tell you that.
I can't see how the endgame will play out, but I'm glad that I have a job and that I am support staff. (Note: universities will always need support staff, and because they need them, they will find funds to pay them.
My limited experience is that the German perception of science degrees is that they prepare people for a very broad range of work, not limited to academic science. When I was in Germany studying physics I was always blown away by the large class sizes. I was told that many/most of the students had no plans to continue on in physics, but rather in industry of some kind. I also once saw a billboard in a train station aimed at recruiting physics and chemistry graduates for some company.
In contrast, I'd guess that 90+% of my physics BS classmates in the US went on to do PhD's in physics or something very closely related. Of my PhD classmates, I'm not sure any are working tenure track jobs 3-6 years after graduating... I switched over to data science.
In the US, industry prefers to hire graduates with Bachelors of Engineering degrees rather than Bachelors of Science. Of course, engineering majors do take physics, but after the first few courses they start focusing in on specifically engineering-focused material rather than, for instance, continuing into a Modern Physics sequence that contains things like relativity, quantum mechanics, molecular physics, biophysics, etc.
I think a lot of PhDs would jump at the chance for a non-academic job.
Call me cynical, but this article looks like more edu-propaganda from the higher education cartel. Why? It deliberately conflates technical and non-technical PhDs. Yes, there may well be a good many non-academic jobs for tech phds, although not as many as this article seems to airily assume.
As for any sort of job for non-tech phds, well, those are hard to come by....
This article makes unstated assumptions that all PhDs can just up and get a non-academic job, should that professorship job somehow not come through.
The higher education industry is evil and has deep, deep pockets. They buy media propaganda like you and I buy potato chips at the convenience store.
I wonder whether this article is bought and paid for propaganda.
Comments
This is a weak piece, it overlooks many things.
First, there seems to be the idea that a PhD's place is in academia. Where is this idea even coming from? Back in a different time I got a degree in chemistry in Germany, and the idea was that you would sign up with one if the chemical companies. The degree program was very thorough and broad and lasted five years, and you would start work, be given a mentor, and do anything chemical. Your degree equipped you to do that, it was very broad, if it was chemistry you had heard of it. A PhD was required, chemical technicians would be trained on the job. The lesson here is that a broad degree makes you more employable, but you cannot sell this idea when students have to raise their own funds to pay for their degree and when state and federal funding lines for universities keep shrinking.
But what happened was several things: the great monoliths that in Germany had a standing like Microsoft or Google were broken up and sold off (except the BASF), and the perennial pharmco crisis started.
There is another lesson, I think: deep science requires deep pockets that only a large, established company can provide. Startups are no solution: it seems that the big pharmcos are now turning into brokers that acquire startups, in-house projects aren't done any longer, instead you acquire a startup, and testing is contracted out abroad. Another problem: no one cooks up their own compounds any longer, you contract out to a Chinese contract shop that employs PhDs from China. I'm not sure if this is cheaper or better (there is something to be said for short communication lines - just walk up a floor), but it is current practice.
Also: at my second-tier state school the quality of applicants started really going up after 2009, when the crisis had settled in. To me this means that private jobs have disappeared, and universities aren't hiring much either.
This is an economic problem, and I really can't see how turning universities into trade schools could be helpful to create jobs. Neither do I see how increased reliance on privately-funded research institutes would help - no matter how big their endowment they would still be competing for external funding, the biggest source of which is the NIH. But the NIH keeps getting its funding cut.
There's the other problem: the government isn't funding science as much as it ought to.
First, there seems the idea that a PhD's place is in academia. Where is this idea even coming from?
It's in the air, in the environment. Perhaps your circumstances are different, but in the US the overproduction of Ph.D.s is sufficient to sustain at least one business: The Versatile Ph.D. http://versatilephd.com/.
The online blogging on the phenomenon is hard to miss.
(The blog has disappeared. 401 - Authentication required)
Yes, this is this systemic problem in the US. It started with many second-tier schools opening grad schools to compete for NIH and NSF funds, which at that time were freely available. The career path for those graduates would be to go into teaching at other second-tier schools, or at four-year colleges.
But now, after the crisis struck, even top-tier graduates have problems, and they are now being hired by second-tier schools to compete for less external funding. This leaves no way out for the graduates of weaker programs.
Another problem: the quality of the applicants for PhD at second-tier schools. Man, it's awful, it is. Top tier schools are as large as they want to be, and they hire whomever they like. Lesser schools try to make to with the rest that didn't get into the top places, and it's no fun, let me tell you that.
I can't see how the endgame will play out, but I'm glad that I have a job and that I am support staff. (Note: universities will always need support staff, and because they need them, they will find funds to pay them.
(The blog has disappeared. 401 - Authentication required)
My tremendous error: it should have been http://versatilephd.com, not http://versatilephd.org.
My limited experience is that the German perception of science degrees is that they prepare people for a very broad range of work, not limited to academic science. When I was in Germany studying physics I was always blown away by the large class sizes. I was told that many/most of the students had no plans to continue on in physics, but rather in industry of some kind. I also once saw a billboard in a train station aimed at recruiting physics and chemistry graduates for some company.
In contrast, I'd guess that 90+% of my physics BS classmates in the US went on to do PhD's in physics or something very closely related. Of my PhD classmates, I'm not sure any are working tenure track jobs 3-6 years after graduating... I switched over to data science.
In the US, industry prefers to hire graduates with Bachelors of Engineering degrees rather than Bachelors of Science. Of course, engineering majors do take physics, but after the first few courses they start focusing in on specifically engineering-focused material rather than, for instance, continuing into a Modern Physics sequence that contains things like relativity, quantum mechanics, molecular physics, biophysics, etc.
I think a lot of PhDs would jump at the chance for a non-academic job.
Call me cynical, but this article looks like more edu-propaganda from the higher education cartel. Why? It deliberately conflates technical and non-technical PhDs. Yes, there may well be a good many non-academic jobs for tech phds, although not as many as this article seems to airily assume.
As for any sort of job for non-tech phds, well, those are hard to come by....
This article makes unstated assumptions that all PhDs can just up and get a non-academic job, should that professorship job somehow not come through.
The higher education industry is evil and has deep, deep pockets. They buy media propaganda like you and I buy potato chips at the convenience store.
I wonder whether this article is bought and paid for propaganda.