<p>"In the life sciences, the U.S. is awarding twice as many doctorates as two decades ago, but has no more faculty jobs, according to one recent study that prompted the journal Nature to editorialize that "too many graduate schools may be preparing too many students." A 1998 National Research Council made much the same warning.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, universities keep flooding the academic pipeline. </p>
<p>The latest federal data show about 45,600 Ph.Ds were awarded in 2005-2006, 5.1 percent higher than the year before. It was the fourth straight increase and tied for the highest percentage gain since 1971."</p>
<p>"We have flooded the labor market with Ph.Ds who can't get jobs doing what they've been trained to do," said Cat Warren, a North Carolina State English professor and state American Association of University Professors leader, who recently gave a talk to graduate students at nearby Duke warning them to be realistic. "I think we have to think very hard about that."</p>
<p>High schools have been doing the same for two generations, so that today a lot of jobs that used to require less school attendance than graduation from high school are now beginning to require college attendance. There is always credential glut followed by credential creep in job requirements.</p>
<p>It is not across the board. I know in my field we've had a shortage of labor for 20 years and there is no sign of it letting up. Every PhD graduate gets an academic job, our salaries have gone up steeply, and PhD students are very well funded throughout their training. </p>
<p>But I do think potential PhDs need a solid understanding of their particular job market before investing in this route.</p>
<p>I'd agree with starbright; it depends on the field. Now if someone has their mind set on academia, and won't consider industry, then perhaps the the numbers are skewed.</p>
<p>Last night I checked the stats about 25% of the PHDs awarded in the US were to foreigners, and a lot of these people go back to their respective states after graduation, so I think the problem can be overstated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"In the life sciences, the U.S. is awarding twice as many doctorates as two decades ago, but has no more faculty jobs..."
[/quote]
But around 50% of life science PhDs end up in what Nature often refers to as "alternative" careers -- some by necessity, sure, but many by choice. Not all life science PhDs aspire to academia, although academic journals and academics themselves would like to believe it to be so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not all life science PhDs aspire to academia, although academic journals and academics themselves would like to believe it to be so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's very true, but people should still have an idea of the job market in their field for PhDs, in and out of academia, before they run off to a PhD program. A lot of people don't.</p>
<p>I'm rather surprised they cited life science PhDs, who at least have obvious career routes for which they're not overqualified outside of academia. What about all the pure humanities PhDs who don't have something like biotech to fall back on?</p>
<p>It is the unusual student that enters graduate school with the aim to be a patent attorney rather than a practicing scientist. And it is fortunate there are alternatives for those who find the career unsatisfying, or the life style unattractive. But a large number are discouraged from its post-graduate pursuit because of underfunding. Their education is supported primarily by tax $, and, while these are not "wasted" when students end up in the private sector or in other careers altogether, they are not being used efficiently.</p>
<p>Many science Ph.D.s who work in private industry or for government are practicing scientists (not "patent attorneys" etc.) Companies and government agencies conduct basic and applied research in their laboratories, and there are many other non-laboratory positions which require a Ph.D in science.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is the unusual student that enters graduate school with the aim to be a patent attorney rather than a practicing scientist...Their education is supported primarily by tax $, and, while these are not "wasted" when students end up in the private sector or in other careers altogether, they are not being used efficiently.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can be a practicing scientist in the private or government sector. I would hardly say that the tax $ used to educate a biology PhD who ends up working in biodefense for a defense contractor, or one who ends up working for the CDC or a similar organization, or one who does pharmaceutical research for a biotech company, were not being used efficiently.</p>
<p>Except that companies that are getting their employees trained at US taxpayer are getting an incredible deal. Is there another industry in which this is the case? As I said, these $ are not wasted, but spending $500,000 to educate a PhD so they can take a job a Novartis, is not, in my opinion, a reasonable use of my tax $.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but spending $500,000 to educate a PhD
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow... I wish I could say my H's Ph.D. cost tax payers $500,000! I don't think so.</p>
<p>By the way, my Ph.D. husband who works for a pharmaceutical, and many of his colleagues have working relationships with major research universities that pay nothing. It's called collaboration.</p>
<p>If Novartis cures cancer, it will be because they utilized a technology developed in an academic lab. And if they do cure cancer, they will make enough money (and in fact already do) to reimburse taxpayers for the $ spent to train their employees.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow... I wish I could say my H's Ph.D. cost tax payers $500,000! I don't think so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? Figure the cost of his tuition and stipend, fringe benefits, indirect costs, for the portion of his PHD and post-doc training supported by training programs and grants, and $500,000 is probably a conservative figure. He may not have made much money, but you better believe the govt spent alot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By the way, my Ph.D. husband who works for a pharmaceutical, and many of his colleagues have working relationships with major research universities that pay nothing. It's called collaboration.
[/quote]
Not sure what you mean by "universities pay nothing". Collaborations with academia by industry are not entered into without a determination on the latter's part they have something to gain. Been there, done that.</p>
<p>Just a caveat about potential employers: do NOT count on big pharma to employ those life science PhDs (or those chemistry phDs, either) in the near future. This particular sector is in a downturn right now, and I don't think the bloodletting is over.</p>
<p>Of course, things could be much rosier in 5 years or so, but the days of steady employment at the big pharmaceutical houses are probably gone.</p>