<p>I hate to stir the pot, but sometimes I just can't help myself.</p>
<p>What</a> is the value of a science PhD: Is graduate school worth the effort? - Slate Magazine</p>
<p>The author argues in favor of graduate degrees for scientists. Some good points and some weak ones, but an interesting read nonetheless. Thoughts?</p>
<p>The reality is that, if you want to be a scientist, regardless the actual job function (teaching, research, policy, ect), you have to get a phd. Otherwise, you are just an assistant to scientist.</p>
<p>I think the argument is more that getting a graduate degree in the sciences is a worthwhile endeavor, as opposed to becoming an M.D. or an engineer or following some unrelated career track. There is clearly a limited range of career options for a B.S. scientist. </p>
<p>I think it does do a good job of emphasizing that a science Ph.D. prepares you for a lot of things besides just academia, which tends to get lost in all of the sturm und drang over post-graduate school career prospects.</p>
<p>Which are the “great points” you saw in the article? Most of the points I saw were pretty bad.</p>
<p>Advantages of earning a (science) PhD:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Can get a finance job with Goldman Sachs. Caveat: Goldman Sachs also hires undergrads for the same work. The prestigious finance and consulting firms seem to care more about the prestige of your institutional affiliation than the actual degree you earned.</p></li>
<li><p>Graduate school is fun. His examples: afternoons at the grad pub, an internship with a magazine, trips to Europe. Most notably, he did not call lab work or taking qualifying exams or writing conference papers or grant proposals fun. In other words: the fun part of graduate school is the non-academic stuff you get to do in your free time. Wait, I thought that’s what college was for?</p></li>
<li><p>Low unemployment rates among PhDs. It’s not entirely clear to me if the unemployment rate reflects their academic training, or the ambition of the curious hardworking individuals who are likely to pursue a PhD in the first place. Would those same individuals be less successful if they pursued different educational avenues?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>I would be hesitant to call a science PhD “valuable” for any of the reasons the author gave. (Though I do agree with PCHope that it is tremendously valuable for prospective university instructors, researchers and policy makers.)</p>
<p>We just had a huge discussion on it:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/science-majors/1324120-science-phds-non-academic-career-paths.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/science-majors/1324120-science-phds-non-academic-career-paths.html</a></p>
<p>My take is that it is a pyramid scheme for Universities and an outright scam for companies trying to flood the market with desperate science talent willing to take the abuse and insulting salaries they offer.</p>
<p>I was strongly encouraged to get my PhD and initially when I started grad school I intended to. I made that decision on the basis of 2 main points.</p>
<ol>
<li>The program is 4-5 years</li>
<li>It would enhance my salary and job prospects.</li>
</ol>
<p>Once it became clear that both were lies I opted for the MS.</p>
<p>The average for completing a PhD is now 7 years and everyone from my lab who did are stuck in post-docs 5 years later with no prospects of ever having a real job. They will end up doing a career change around age 40 having to deal with the PhD = overqualified for everything stigma attached to them for the rest of their life. </p>
<p>Science in this country has degenerated into a sick joke and a trap that exploits and abuses the brightest but naive. The grad student program has become a pyramid scheme and as a source for cheap scientific labor for Universities to do research and teach undergrad science. Watson famous for co-discovering the double helix structure of DNA lambasted the scientific community for turning grad school into a serfdom. Many PI’s don’t give any sort of mentorship and completion rates can be as low as 1/3 though 1/2 is average. The PI at the lab where I worked not only did not mentor anyone he kept his most productive students from graduating. One of my colleagues had to get the provost involved. There is no accountability in PhD programs for providing a quality educational experience rather than simple exploitation. </p>
<p>Any student that manages to get through the above gauntlet has little to look forward to but endless crappy post-docs and falling further behind in life.</p>
<p>Things are not much better on the industry side of things as the huge excess of scientific talent, the h1b program, and outsourcing allow companies to abuse their science staff like no other group of workers. Most positions pay at least 30 to 50 percent below what they should, are extremely unstable, many are permatemp and have no benefits.</p>
<p>In short, pursuing a career in science is an act of madness. Our society does not value science at all anymore. That is why in many grad programs US citizens are a minority. For third worlders, science represents a way out of poverty, but for Americans it has become the way into it.</p>
<p>Grad school fun. Perhaps at rare times but for the most part it is endless toil in a lab working sweatshop hours often running endless mundane procedures like setting up PCR reactions, or cell cultures. Also having to TA undergrads at the same time is like a second job. All the while they need to try to survive on a $15k stipend. I’ve met very few sci PhD’s who look back at grad school as fun. Most describe it as years of hell that you need to survive (sort of like the week of H#ll Navy Seals go through in training) to get that coveted title of Dr. in front of your name and to be able to join the club of “researchers”.</p>
<p>Low unemployment? Not really. Most PhD’s from my lab are still doing crappy post-docs. Science majors especially PhD’s have a much harder time getting a real job than other majors other than the people who chose majors with no business relevance like art or ____ American Studies. There are hordes of PhD’s applying for every PhD level science job in an era where companies don’t do R&D anymore at least not in the USA. The pharma industry is hoping that cheaper Slaves in India and China will save their rear since they don’t have enough new drugs to replace the ones whose patents are expiring.</p>
<p>You should visit Derek Lowe’s blog In The Pipeline for the real scoop on the job market in science.
<a href=“http://pipeline.corante.com/[/url]”>http://pipeline.corante.com/</a></p>
<p>I advise students to pursue a Ph.D. ONLY when they have the desire to do so and want to move into a research career. If they are interested in enhancing their earning power, a Masters is a far better degree. Any conscientious academic advisor would say the same and not perpetuate any “pyramid scheme”</p>
<p>Depends why you want to get it.</p>
<p>If you just want to make more money, it’s a waste of time; even if you have a higher starting salary, you’ll never make up for the lost years of work experience and lost wages. If you’re positive you want to be a professor, on the other hand, you’re not getting the job without one. There are other reasons you might have that might make the value of a PhD harder to determine.</p>
<p>I just read some interesting statistics in the recent Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac. </p>
<p>Growth in Share of Faculty 60 & Older: “At 8 of the 11 institutions examined, the proportion of older faculty has at least doubled in the past 2 decades. At 7 of the institutions, a quarter or more of the professors are over 59.”</p>
<p>Specific examples given were Cornell at 35%, UT-Austin at 28%, U. ov Virginia at 30%, Duke at 27%, etc.</p>
<p>It would seem there should be more faculty positions opening up within the next 5 to 10 years and beyond.</p>
<p>That’s assuming they replace the old positions with new full-time ones… As someone working in a university right now, I can assure that is rarely the case. The corporate mentality took over universities a while ago, it’s not going back to the good ol’ days any time soon.</p>
<p>There have been predictions of a boom in academic hiring in response to faculty retirements for at least a decade now - as Blobof mentions, these positions are often replaced with adjuncts, so the academic market is tough.</p>
<p>What I think the article does well, though, is pointing out that not everyone getting a science Ph.D. is going into academia, and that’s ok. While some industries have been hit hard by outsourcing (as the folks of the pharmaceutical bent are so happy to point out), others continue to recruit heavily from the Ph.D. ranks. I believe finance was given as a catch-all example for mathematically-inclined Ph.D. positions, but properly marketed, a typical Ph.D. is full of skills that are transferable to a wide variety of industry careers (statistics, working with large databases, programming skills, project management, creative and self-directed idea generation, working with international teams, etc.).</p>
<p>Is a Ph.D. fun? Well, if you don’t get a kick out of the thrill of discovery, a Ph.D. probably isn’t for you. When you’re in the lab fixing broken instruments at midnight on a Friday night - also not that fun. But, for probably the first time in your life, figuring out some small piece of how the world works that no one else in the world knew before you came along? Pretty fun. Also, drinking.</p>
<p>Could you make more money with an M.D.? Most likely. But not everyone wants to be a doctor, or an engineer, or whatever. With some luck and some patience (and some blood, and some tears), a science Ph.D. can work out. Since I finish mine up on Friday, I’m going to go ahead and say that it was worth it.</p>
<p>^Congratulations!
I know some science PhD students that seemed to have fun. Whenever I’d walk into a lab, people looked happy to be doing what they loved and that was inspiring. Sure, no one was thrilled about being a gen Chen TA but who would be?</p>