Old news, perhaps, to anyone who’s worked in these fields, but worthwhile information for those with children who dream of a life in academic science.
Here is an older article on the subject:
Of course, the numbers game means that few PhD graduates (in any subject) will be hired to tenure track jobs at research universities.
Professionals in the basic sciences (biology, chemistry, physics) have been sounding the alarms on this issue for more than two decades now. Needless to say, things have gotten a lot worse since then. In standard academia fashion, the response has been glacial.
Only likely to get worse.
It’s really sad, especially in the basic sciences. And yet I’m always reading about kids dreaming of a career in “biomedicine” or “biomedical engineering” and aiming for elite universities for undergrad (where they may or may not be eligible for need-based aid) because they believe (rightly so?) that that’s imperative to starting out on the right track:
This comment from a poster in New York really struck me:
This is upsetting to read. S has his heart set on getting a PhD in physics and loves doing research
From what I have seen, it does appear that many physics graduates (both BA/BS and PhD) eventual go to work in computing or finance, since their (quantitative/logical) skills are adaptable to these areas, while actual physics research jobs are scarce. (Obviously, a physics major thinking of such backup options may want to take relevant out-of-major courses as an undergraduate.)
Anyone who has done any sort of research on grad school should be aware of career prospects, it’s impossible to avoid all the warnings like ones in the article. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to pursue a career in academia as long as one keeps in mind that mostly likely it won’t work out. Personally, this is fine with me since there are a bunch of other careers that I would be happy with, and I don’t feel like I’m sacrificing anything to live as a grad student during my 20s, and with the stipend and lifestyle that comes with that.
Most people in grad school assume they will be in the top few percent when it comes to career outcomes, because they are used to being in the top few percent their whole life. This means that statistics and most probable outcomes mean nothing to them. Unfortunately, reality disagrees.
I found this article far too pessimistic and demeaning. Terms such as “foot soldiers” “cheap labor” and this phrase:
make a scientific career sound like some sort of vocational training engaged in by clueless louts who aren’t aware of other options. The truth is that the truly dedicated scientists, the ones for whom discovery and invention are their own rewards, do not begrudge their low salaries and uncertain future. Passionate and creative scientists almost always find a spot in a lab, and the best of them will find a good job eventually. Many end up doing very well in patent law, a path that wasn’t even mentioned in the article.The explosion of discovery in biomedicine and plant gene technology has resulted in high demand for knowledgeable patent attorneys.
Scientists who are not standouts often find teaching positions at small liberal arts colleges where they oversee summer research projects by undergraduates or do the “adjunct” route and teach at several colleges. The problem I see is the ridiculous effort to drive every student with a pulse into a “STEM” field regardless of aptitude or interest. The unrealistic (for many) goal of medical school is another culprit. Legions of biology majors who don’t get into med school and can’t find jobs decide to attend grad school hoping their added education will result in a “return on investment”.
It struck me too, but for different reasons.
-
I’d guess that there is plenty of ageism in the academic world, particularly science.
-
Encouraging “young people” to enter STEM fields is NOT the same as encouraging them to become research scientists.
I got a PhD in Electrical Engineering back in the dark ages. I loved my graduate school years; some of the most fun in my life and I didn’t mind the low pay; all of my friends were in the same boat. But most of us went directly to industry after that, with very good to great pay. Some science disciplines (probably engineering, physics, computer science) are like this; others (astronomy, perhaps biology and chemistry) may be harder to have it be “worth it” financially and otherwise.
Physics PhDs we’ve know have gone many routes in addition to academia. We know physics PhDs in industry (quite well paid), finance (super well paid), and at government labs like NIST, Los Alamos (get to blow stuff up), and Livermore.
From what I have seen while in grad school, there are too many biology related PhDs (even back in late 80s) who earn low wages working as researchers in college labs. I started at over 35k in my first engineering job while I knew there were researchers with PhDs at my state school who were experienced and making about 25k. That disparity has gotten only larger since most engineering grads these days start anywhere between 60 to 100k and I am not sure those researchers’ payscales have improved a whole lot comparatively.
In my biology-related STEM field, which does have industry jobs available, we get a few dozen applicants for any tenure-track research-intensive faculty position. Most of them are just not good enough to consider. Usually there are a couple of standouts, and a few more worth considering for interview. For the rest, we would rather close the position than hire one of them.
My son is a sophomore studying neuroscience. He’s found a summer position doing research in organic chemistry. His immediate supervisor is a postdoc whose contract is ending relatively soon. The postdoc has just had his second child child and scrambling to find his next position.
My son wants to pursue a research career. At least he will be pursuing this with open eyes. I don’t have an academia background so when I warned him about the odds, I don’t think it resonated. Now he can see the odds and consequences.
DH got his PhD in bio-physics. He used to do basic research, but has moved to studying cancer because it’s one of the few places there is any funding. If you don’t have tenure and don’t get funding you are out.
My nephew is getting a biomedical engineering PhD from MIT any day now. He’s very stressed out and is assuming he’ll be working in industry not academia.
I know of someone who went to MIT followed by a H PhD with a Biomed E who is at S as a post doc for the past 4 years aiming for a faculty position. I was wondering aloud why it has become so hard to get a faculty position to someone else who got a BS from S and pursuing a PhD from Berkeley in the same field and the response I got was no one is going straight into academia even after going to such highfaluting schools even in Engineering.
My academic sources tell me that tenure slots are being eliminated slowly but surely…My D is about to start PhD program, and would love an academic job, but is a realist and is already signing up for a few classes that will make her more attractive to industry. Quite frankly, I see a better fit for her there, anyway.