<p>“And that’s where employers are calling “over qualified” because employers are now wanting cheep employees, which are always under qualified and young.”</p>
<p>That is a trend across the board, not just in IT. It is very disheartening.</p>
<p>Humanities and science PhDs are very different, although the article tends to treat them as the same. I think she is right in saying that far too many academic PhDs–that is, PhDs with a goal of a job in academia–are being produced. There simply aren’t that many jobs. With too many qualified applicants, colleges can hire PhDs as temporary workers, non-tenure track, not even with real job benefits, working from semester to semester at the pleasure of the school. Such low-level positions, teaching only low-level introductory courses–in the case of English, “composition,” which is merely another word for remedial writing–are paid very little, and more importantly, offer very little in the way of job satisfaction. If you get your PhD because you love English literature, you will probably not enjoy trying to teach composition to students who hated English in high school. That said, it is not true that a Master’s degree is practically the same as a PhD for an English professor–a terminal master’s is the sign that you couldn’t do the work of a PhD, and it is worth nothing, even if you try to teach in high school (you still won’t have the teacher’s certificate that you need, and you can’t claim a PhD). I don’t think that is the case in the sciences, particularly in Engineering. </p>
<p>OTOH, my husband works for a hedge fund that was founded by PhDs, and they do place a high value on the skills and dedication that getting a PhD entails, even if the PhD had nothing to do with finance or math. Maybe more companies ought to realize that potential: if you can write a 200-page thesis on some obscure aspect of Byzantine history, you can focus on and evaluate even more arcane information.</p>
<p>It depends very very much on the field in question, so to talk about ‘all PhDs’ does not make a lot of sense. Just as an illustrative counter example, I can say for a fact that getting a PhD at a top 30 or more business school leads to multiple academic job offers. That has been true for more than 20 years. And in many of the sub-disciplines of business, one can also walk back out into industry if they so wish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LadyDianeski, I specifically mentioned chemistry as a field where a PhD is valued especially by big pharma and biotech companies. Not surprisingly, big pharma is also among the biggest sponsors of university research. Also, a lot of biotech startups originate from projects performed at leading research universities. It makes a lot of sense for these companies to hire PhDs who are already proficient in drug development. Companies will always pay for people with highly specialized research skills in high growth fields.</p>
<p>Greetings:</p>
<p>Wouldn’t the value of the Ph.D. also depend on where it was obtained? It doesn’t seem very difficult to get into some Ph.D. programs - lots of lesser universities have them - but at what cost? Getting a Ph.D. from Armpit University with no distinguished professors or notable research in your field is a waste of time and resources.</p>
<p>Also, there seem to be an awful lot of people getting Ph.D.s from for-profit universities without realizing that they are probably worthless. Even more appalling, they think that these “degrees” are the same as those earned by other students at reputable universities with strong departments in their chosen field.</p>
<p>Indeed true, and Ph.D’s in Political science will not compare to more scientific or mathematical Ph.D’s, and quality of university too, you have no idea how many doctors out there got Ph.D’s from 3rd tier colleges, but it’s just ridiculous. </p>
<p>Also Professor’s or people aspiring to become one are not necessarily in for the money, but rather a meaningful career in some life passionate field, the utopia of learning. For other’s it may not work, agreed.</p>
<p>If the goal is high income …don’t earn a Ph.D. </p>
<p>If, on the other hand, you are passionate about research and have an area of intense of interest it is an amazing experience. Both my husband and I have Ph.D.s. We received full tuition remission & stipends (teaching and research assistantships) for 5 years. I needed another year to finish my doctoral research so I took a LOA (to avoid having a tuition bill) and I taught at a local CC to meet my living expenses. </p>
<p>I am now a tenured prof. in my field (psychology), and my husband works in the private sector (he could not land a tenure-track position in his obscure field). We have no regrets. It’s true that we are not rich --but we own a home and live a happy middle-class (intellectually stimulating) life. </p>
<p>Must achievement and success be measured in dollar amounts?</p>
<p>I participate in faculty hiring (in biology). We usually are not at all interested in where the candidate obtained their PhD, only in their actual achievements (publications). Good publication records come out of a very wide range of universities (even Armpit U.).</p>
<p>cellardweller, </p>
<p>I worked for a small biotech company before enrolling in the biomedical PhD program, and almost everyone who was in the upper management had some type of advance degree, PhD/MD, etc. I am not saying that the degree is required–but with just a BS/MS, the path to the top positions become steeper, because you always have to prove yourself when you dont have that added credential/letters at the end of your name and you always end up doing the work for others without having your own authority on the project. Now, this may not be true in some big Pharmas, because even people with masters can climb up the ladder and be equally respected as a PhD level scientist. And having a PhD does not give you the authority, you have to earn the respect with performance. </p>
<p>Ofcourse, there is the opportunity cost not being in the workforce for 5+ years, which is a disadvantage, but its still worth it, IMO! I guess its more of an individual preference, if you really want a PhD, you will do it. If you are just looking to improve your financial situation, then a masters would be better. </p>
<p>But I will say that PhD is still valuable even outside of academia–you can apply for positions in consulting, patent law(I know you don’t really need a PhD, but your strong science background is very valuable for firms who specialize in biotech IP law) and lot of top IP firms do look for candidates with PhDs and it is considered an asset. If you really want to become patent lawyer later, you can do part time law school and some firms might probably pay for the tuition (you will never be in debt for your student loans like for other degrees). </p>
<p>Or you can do postdoc programs in companies, and move on to scientific positions- you never have to be a poor academic postdoc! </p>
<p>But if you do like the flexibility and prestige of being in academia churning out scientific publications and/or like teaching, then I guess you will probably be better off doing an academic postdoc.</p>
<p>yaygrady,</p>
<p>Again, I agree that chemistry/biomedical PhD have attractive career paths outside of academia and that most heads of R&D in biotech firms (and often the founders) are PhD themselves. If you have the required skill-set, joining a technology startup (or forming your own) can also be very lucrative for science PhDs in field such as nanotechnology. </p>
<p>In big pharma, key positions are more often held by MDs rather than PhDs in part because of the expensive clinical trials required fro FDA approval. A good friend of mine dropped out of a chemistry PhD program at MIT to go to medical school instead. After completing his cardiology fellowship, he worked for a large hospital for a while. He got bored practicing medicine and was hired as Medical Director for Astra-Zeneca where he now makes seven figures in charge of several blockbuster drugs. That position was only available because he was an MD. </p>
<p>As far as patent attorneys, what really counts is experience writing patents. IP firms generally hire candidates with 5 years or more in patent prosecution. Most PhDs in IP are just patent agents, not full attorneys and are paid a fraction of what patent attorneys make. Having your company pay for law school is not that common and comes with strings attached. You will generally be required to stay for another 5 years working as in-house patent attorney and will not make anywhere near what outside attorneys make. It often makes more sense to pay for law school yourself.</p>
<p>Even in the sciences, PhDs can be problematic in the private sector. Biotech startups might want PhDs, but Big Pharma would much rather pick up someone with a BS or MS they can stick on the drug-development assembly line for a pittance. You’re overqualified if you have a PhD. There are opportunities for science PhDs outside of academia, but it’s pretty risky.</p>
<p>If you stay in academia (whether you’re a science PhD or humanities PhD), you’re probably screwed. Colleges are almost de facto eliminating tenure, preferring to hire adjuncts who have no job security and even fewer benefits. Academia is like Hollywood now: a few people make it big, but most suffer in poverty and obscurity.</p>
<p>I submit that very few planned their lives from the start. You may have a vague idea of what you are going to do when you grow up. However, life may throw curve balls at you than cause or force changes in your plan. Ph.D. does not provide a rainbow-bridge the the promise land full of gold and silver. However, in general, Ph.D programs do provide the following:</p>
<ol>
<li>Demonstrate your intelligence as well as your tenacity, which are required for success</li>
<li>Introduces to you a way of thinking and problem-solving. </li>
<li>Lead you to a circle of social environment that may provide you with opportunities which may not be available otherwise.</li>
</ol>
<p>Ph.D training just like asking someone to dig a deep and narrow hole on the ground. The topic of study may or many be of interest to very few folks in the specific circle. However, what you gain in the process will be useful later in life.</p>
<p>In terms of gainful employment after Ph.D., it depends on filed of study and, sometimes, depending on the luck of the day(or the year). Just an examples:</p>
<p>A good friend of mine, with a brilliant mind, chose to study astrophysics. Got BS, MS in Japan, a Ph.D in three years at Harvard. Competed in vain to find an academic position. Wall Street called and now happily managing a large investment fund.</p>
<p>Back in DH’s day, several universities instituted special programs to help humanities PhDs transition into the business world. Do such programs still exist, do y’all know?</p>
<p>When DH’s first adviser, Professor Wolff, was young, the professoriate was a genteel, leisured gentleman’s club. By the time DH was earning his doctorate, the professoriate had become a rat race, with hyper-intense competition for fewer and fewer poorly paid jobs. </p>
<p>Even back then, tenure-track positions were dwindling in number. If pwoods is correct – and I have no reason to doubt him – the situation has become even more dire nowadays. </p>
<p>I can certainly understand why belt-tightening institutions would move away from tenured positions toward adjunct / lecturer jobs, with poor pay and no security. It’s the old “Saving the Almighty Buck” shtick, which seems to be all most employers care about these days. </p>
<p>But—won’t it come back and bite them in the butt eventually? How can you best serve future generations of students if your faculty consists largely of demoralized temporary workers? And won’t this hurt the schools’ reputations??</p>
<p>In DH’s day (early '80s), Harvard PhDs had a really hard time finding tenure-track jobs. If it’s even worse today, then – i-yi-yi!</p>
<p>The basic problem , as far as I can tell (and I’m relying in part on the recent “Higher Education ?” by Hacker and Driefus, is that we have far more PhDs coming out than positions opening up. For a long time this wasn’t the case, and even into the 60s-80s, as more students were going to college, more positions were opening up. But the stark truth is that we just don’t need as many PhDs going into teaching as we create.
After that, things get murky. What PhD you have matters a lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is certainly true that many people who are embarking upon PhD’s are wasting their time. On the other hand, let’s face it, plenty of young people in their 20’s or 30’s who are not in graduate school, including some with top college grades, are also wasting their time, drifting from job to job - or with extended stretches of returning to live at home with no job at all - with career trajectory or even with a clear plan about what they want to do. I can think of a number of people who graduated from top-ranked schools with decent grades who nevertheless have switched jobs more than once a year ever since they’ve graduated, including such exciting opportunities as working as waiters and retail cashiers. I’m not sure that that’s any better than pursuing a PhD. </p>
<p>Granted, they majored in unmarketable subjects as undergrads. But that’s precisely the point. What are you really going to do with a degree in art history, except perhaps pursue an art history PhD? Many of the ‘drifting’ PhD students don’t exactly have many strong private-sector career opportunities anyway, so they’re making the best of what they have.</p>
<p>^Amen, 10 char</p>
<p>PhD is not exactly a waste of time, if you are doing it in something practical. Lets face it…research is never going to die. People will still need scientists to work on and come up with novel drugs for established and emerging diseases or come up with sustainable energy sources that improve our global environment or make devices to improve diagnoses of diseases, for example. </p>
<p>Yes, it may be tough for liberal arts PhD to justify their education, because it does not provide concrete solutions to world’s problems, I mean art history may be interesting but only a certain number of experts care about the details behind the subject. But, people can always use their writing and research skills to market themselves in other types of jobs, if they are not too hung up on academia jobs. </p>
<p>I guess you have to keep looking outside of the box – and you never know what might strike interesting to you.</p>
<p>nemom – '60s, maybe, but not the '80s. The '80s were a horrible time for humanities PhDs. We knew of non-tenure-track American history positions that literally attracted thousands of applicants (for one position) – for $19,000 per year (and yes, that was crummy, even back then). One young assistant professor told me that, in her field (Russian language and literature), 600 applicants had come out of the woodwork for a poorly paid gig teaching Russian language (no literature). </p>
<p>The problem was that so many of the available jobs had been snapped up by Baby Boomer PhDs during the '60s and '70s – so, if you earned your doctorate in the early '80s, you were out of luck. The best spots had been taken by youngish profs who weren’t going anywhere for awhile.</p>
<p>That was when universities started taking advantage of young academics by creating non-tenure-track jobs with lousy pay and no security. The young PhDs were so desperate they took anything just to have a paycheck. Many became “gypsy scholrs,” moving from one adjunt or lecturer job to another…to another…to another. It was utterly demoralizing.</p>
<p>Sounds as if it’s even worse today. But the phenomenon really started in the '80s. Once universities realized they could get away with this sort of abuse, I guess they just took the ball and ran with it. Great way to tighten belts yet still get teachers, right? :(</p>
<p>Hi. First time poster. Just wanted to add my two cents about my experience as a Physics Ph.D. student in the 1980’s.
I was lucky enough to have been advised by an, a now seemingly, enlightened member of the faculty. He basically said that due to demographics and the influx of Chinese and Indian physics students that the opportunities of a tenure-track position were greatly diminished compared to the the previous generation. He definitely tried to dissuade us from focusing on academia as the only reward for achieving a Ph.D. But he also told us earning a Ph.D. was going to give us a major advantage obtaining employment in industries that would value our mathematical and research skills. The majority of us were quite successful leveraging our computer technical skills in financial services, insurance, etc…</p>
<p>The union card for a researcher in private industry working in fields like Chem and Bio is a PhD. But there is precious little demand for PhD’s in the humanities in industry, which leaves academia as the main employer for most PhDs. The job market was good in the boom years from the 50’s to early 70’s as college enrollments expanded both due to the raw growth in applicants due to the baby boom and to the increasing demand for college education. </p>
<p>In 1940 less than 5% of all adults over 25 had a Bachelors or higher. Post-war with the GI bill this became 6.2% by 1950 (which is around a 40% increase in college enrollment), almost 8% by 1960, 11% by 1970, and 17% by 1980. The growth rate per decade is staggering. Someone had to teach all these students, and those were jobs for PhD’s. (data from [National</a> Center for Education Statistics](<a href=“Percentage of persons age 25 and over and 25 to 29, by race/ethnicity, years of school completed, and sex: Selected years, 1910 through 2009”>Percentage of persons age 25 and over and 25 to 29, by race/ethnicity, years of school completed, and sex: Selected years, 1910 through 2009))</p>
<p>Now, however, growth in college enrollment has leveled off; enrollment growth comes mainly from the echo-boomers kids and that is peaking around now. Once the level of enrollment flattens out, each college professor needs to train only enough grad students in her/his ENTIRE career to replace those currently working. That’s probably just 4-6 per prof at a PhD granting school, one to replace herself and a few others to teach at schools that don’t grant PhDs. In reality each prof has several grad students at any one time, and during their career will probably be responsible for 25-30 future PhDs. It should be clear just from the numbers that there is no room for these people in academia.</p>