<p>That's probably true of any occupation or career. I'd say the days of steady employment at any firm are long gone.</p>
<p>That's why I think PhD production rates for colleges is a very questionable indicator. Who spends 7 years working on a possibly worthless degree?</p>
<p>Although it is true that he tuition, stipend, fringe benefits, etc. of many Ph.D. students in the sciences is paid by their advisor's research grant (often funded by the federal govt.), I do not agree that this means that the taxpayers' money is being used only to educate the Ph.D. student, so that if the students does not go into academia, the taxpayers' money has been wasted. The Ph.D. student is paid by the grant because he or she is doing the research work funded by the grant, which has been selected a worthwhile research project by the funding agency (such as the National Institute of Health). The Ph.D. student is normally working very long hours and being paid a low stipend compared to a hired research assistant who is not a graduate student. So the taxpayers are actually getting good value for their money when funding the Ph.D. student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Life sciences Ph.D.'s are highly sought in such industries as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, food, etc. They don't need to be in academia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. Too many PhD's, not enough jobs. The post-doc in my lab had been looking for an industry job for the past 2 years w/o much success. He ended up removing his PhD from his resume and taking a job as a contractor with a biotech company starting from the research associate position, a position someone with a BS or a masters would be qualified for.</p>
<p>Drb:</p>
<p>Are you saying that Ph.D.s are worthless? Because all Ph.D.s are supported one way or another. The glut of Ph.D.s is not in the life sciences. It's in the humanities. Is it better to use your tax dollars (if that is the case) to train Ph.D.s to work at big Pharma (thanks, from a cancer survivor) than to train Ph.D.s to work in jobs unrelated or tenuously related to their degrees? H was a Sputnik physicist. When he started in college, the future looked incredibly bright. When he got his Ph.D. there were 600 applicants for an assistant professorship at a third-tier university. That's how the market operates. He has not worked in physics for his entire career. But work he has.</p>
<p>If someone knows what the demand will be for Ph.D.s in specific fields five, ten years from now, can that person share that crystal ball with the rest of us?</p>
<p>The job prospects vary so much by field that it is meaningless to generalize about the payoff to getting a PhD. Overall, people with PhDs make more money than those with only bachelor's degrees, but the range is huge.</p>
<p>Many life sciences programs have recognized that a large portion of their graduates do not end up in academic jobs, and are now working to make industry positions less mysterious and to counter the previous perception that they were for people who could not make it in a tenured position. It is a slow re education process for the faculty.</p>
<p>I don't think engineers and computer scientists with PhD's are finding any problems with getting work. Things may deteriorate if we descend into a true recession, but even then these people will be in demand.</p>
<p>I doubt many English graduate students think their doctoral degrees will lead then to lives of wealth and luxury. Many end up in jobs they could have had with BA's alone. It is a bad idea only if the primary motivation for getting the degree was professional advancement. For most of these people, that was not why the got the degree in the first place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Ph.D. student is paid by the grant because he or she is doing the research work funded by the grant, which has been selected a worthwhile research project by the funding agency
[/quote]
While that can be rationalized for trainees funded by (my) NIH research grants, it is not the case for pre-doc and post-doc training programs, which are explicitly for the purpose of training scientists.</p>
<p>Look, you can parse this as fine as you want, but my point remains that in no other industry does the public sector pay for the bulk of the training of a private sector's corporate employees (except maybe jet pilots trained by the military). Pharma and biotech get an incredible deal, and then spend alot of their own resources on marketing (that "little purple pill") and deal-making. I don't think the training is wasted or the contributions of their scientists, who are as dedicated as any, is not worthwhile (although it is often sequestered). I just think that the training component should not be essentially entirely borne by the public.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, you can parse this as fine as you want, but my point remains that in no other industry does the public sector pay for the bulk of the training of a private sector's corporate employees (except maybe jet pilots trained by the military).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What industry are you even talking about, as your one industry that the public sector is paying for? PhDs who don't go into academia go into all sorts of industries. There are PhDs from various disciplines working in research positions at think tanks, defense contractors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, software companies, and telecommunications companies, among many others. Your argument makes no sense.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Novartis cures cancer, it will be because they utilized a technology developed in an academic lab.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know this comes as a shock to some ivory tower folks (and some folks on the other end of the spectrum too), but theory and applications are both valid and productive avenues of research. They complement each other. There would be no applications without theory, and not much practical point to theory without applications.</p>
<p>Given that both are necessary from the standpoint of societal benefit, I don't see how it is a less reasonable use of tax money to train applications researchers than it is to train theory researchers. I also dispute your idea that academia == theory and industry == applications. There are theory jobs in industry (though not a huge number) and plenty of applications research is being done in universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Many undergrads are funded by taxpayer dollars (in the form of scholarships and government loans and grants). If they go on to get jobs that require college degrees, should their employers reimburse the taxpayers on the grounds that the taxpayers paid for the employees' training?</p>
<p>Who spends 7 years working on a possibly worthless degree?</p>
<p>Well I would say a lot of people stay in school, because it is interesting to them, and they want to stay in that field.They don't want to accept that the field is already saturated with degree holders & would stay in school indefinitely if they could. Some do, just slightly changing their focus every few years.</p>
<p>Myself, I think there should be a compelling reason to get a Ph.d, as it doesn't necessarily make you more employable, unless of course you aren't going to complain afterwards about your loans and your inability to find work that enables you to make a dent in those loans.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What industry are you even talking about, as your one industry that the public sector is paying for?
[/quote]
I thought I was pretty clear - I am talking about pharma and biotech - in which the advanced education of the bulk of its post-graduate trained research personnel are supported by tax dollars. I do not believe that is the case for any of the other industries you have cited.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Given that both are necessary from the standpoint of societal benefit, I don't see how it is a less reasonable use of tax money to train applications researchers than it is to train theory researchers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By this logic we should pay for the MBAs and lawyers at Novartis as well. They are just as crucial to the success of that company, and its attendant societal benefit, as the scientists are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Myself, I think there should be a compelling reason to get a Ph.d, as it doesn't necessarily make you more employable, unless of course you aren't going to complain afterwards about your loans and your inability to find work that enables you to make a dent in those loans.
[/quote]
What loans? My husband, as is typical for most scientists, got a stipend for going to graduate school. And yes, that money probably came from grants that his mentor had from the US government. (NIH or NSF)</p>
<p>This isn't my reason for getting a PhD, but with a degree in the life sciences, I can either work as a laboratory technician with a salary of ~$25,000 (in Boston), or I can work as a graduate student with a slightly higher salary, and end up with a PhD after five or six years.</p>
<p>For life sciences bachelor's degree recipients who want to continue to work in research, getting a PhD seems to me like a sound economic choice.</p>
<p>I was referring in particular to other posters on CC, who profess to having Ph.ds but are un/or underemployed & who only recently have paid off loans or are still paying them.</p>
<p>I realize those fields are generally not in the sciences, because many students will be going to programs that have stipends. Once they are post-doc though- much harder to find employment outside of a bare-bones student level.</p>
<p>re: post 30.
I don't really see why not. But that's not an argument for not supporting Ph.D.s</p>
<p>Re: post 29
[quote]
Myself, I think there should be a compelling reason to get a Ph.d, as it doesn't necessarily make you more employable, unless of course you aren't going to complain afterwards about your loans and your inability to find work that enables you to make a dent in those loans.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So much for the joy of learning. Are people complaining? A lot of Ph.D.s are self-supporting. To begin with, the first couple of years in a Ph.D. program are spent taking classes and preparing oneself for the Ph.D. qualifying exams (aka General Exams). Real research begins after those qualifying exams have been passed. Some students are fully supported by their advisors' outside grants brom NIH, NSF, Dept of the Navy, etc... Others support themselves by acting as TAs. Some do take on loans. But the biggest loans are taken out by students at law and med schools.<br>
If one is not going on to a Ph.D., one can get a Master's degree, though it's often a sort of booby prize, after flunking the Generals unless it is a terminal Master's degree (as in many engineering fields). Even in the private sector, a Ph.D. trumps an M.A.</p>
<p>
[quote]
By this logic we should pay for the MBAs and lawyers at Novartis as well. They are just as crucial to the success of that company, and its attendant societal benefit, as the scientists are.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would be fine with other sorts of grad/professional students having access to TAships and RAships, the way that PhD students do. But I'm still not clear on why you think it is <em>more</em> worthwhile to use tax money to train professors than it is to use tax money to train researchers who don't become professors.</p>
<p>If they aren't complaining, then there isn't a problem is there ? ;)</p>
<p>However-I can't find where I saw it on the Chronicle site, but I have been reading that there is less funding for research in academia- & so less money for stipends for grad students.
I've heard several long time acquaintances who employ post-docs in their research at the UW, cannot pay more than a bare-bone income to the students in their group.</p>
<p>I still think there needs to be a compelling reason to get a ph.d.
If you say you need it , to do research that you are interested in, then that would be a compelling reason wouldn't it?</p>
<p>However, when D interviewed with alumni, re: what she could do with her bio B.A., she found that she would be able to go right to work & not need grad school. She decided that wasn't what she wanted to do, she didn't want to work in a lab environment, however, she does have classmates who are doing work that a Ph.d had been doing. Perhaps the pay is too low, I don't know, because sometimes they have been told, that if a Ph.d applied for the job, they would have preference- but apparently how it looks to shareholders/board, not that they have any problems with their work.
But, they are still working in their field, making enough money to live in the Seattle area & with just a BA.</p>
<p>I know in public education- K-12, I've seen two things going on.
One is- the district really likes people who have advanced degrees, it doesn't matter where it is from or what it is in, if you can put Dr. in front of your name. They seem to think that it gives the district as a whole more creditability. :rolleyes:
But on the other hand, if you are a teacher, you will have better luck getting hired if you have only a BA, or at most a BA with a 5th year for the education certificate, because you will be cheaper. ( and trainable- I've seen them resist hiring people that has much education and experience * and ideas*, because they don't think they will work as well with the status quo)</p>
<p>Id also agree that while in some fields you can get away with a BA, in others, because of market saturation, you will need a doctorate to do what you want to do. Just as many jobs that used to require a high school diploma- like my H's, not require at least two years of college, I can see that career paths which used to require a college diploma- now are requiring more.</p>
<p>Re: flooding the pipeline.
I can also see that there are many students getting undergrad degrees in fields which don't have an obvious career path.
English majors, psych majors- degrees in fine art...</p>
<p>I think that is fine- college is not foremost a place for vocational training,- but it should be clear to students and their families at the outset, that they know that even if they are terribly happy with the education recieved- that and $2.98 will get them a latte.</p>
<p>Many may be working in jobs, that they could get without any college at all.
It's pretty hard for them to accept, especially when they believed that if they got straight A's in college, that was a ticket to the good life.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I'm still not clear on why you think it is <em>more</em> worthwhile to use tax money to train professors than it is to use tax money to train researchers who don't become professors
[/quote]
Because professors are not employed by for-profit corporations, and the results of their govt-funded work are mandated to be in the public domain, not kept secret as proprietary technology.</p>
<p>Yes, federal research funding is going to be about flat this year overall. That means fewer positions for research assitants etc. as they get more expensive every year. But a friend of mine just finished his PhD at UWis and got a research job at Udub so there is still some movement. Just more competition. Faculty hiring should be picking up as the boomers retire soon.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not sure what you mean by "universities pay nothing".
[/quote]
The collaboration goes on without the industry people receiving any fees/salaries/etc. from the university. </p>
<p>
[quote]
do NOT count on big pharma to employ those life science PhDs (or those chemistry phDs, either) in the near future.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sure glad no one told this to all those candidates my H has been interviewing lately. At least my H's pharma has been doing some very aggressive recruiting (and yes, I know that can change next week) in the last year.</p>
<p>To tie this all in together... it's all about networking. H knows several profs at a local university who know people, who know of people. When H collaborates with these profs, who know of good potential candidates in the pipeline, they pass those names along. H just hired at least two people, whose careers he's been following since they began their post-docs. These people were offered jobs up to a year before they finished their post-docs, and not just with H's company.</p>