Questions about PhDs

[wizkid94]

<p>How long does it take to get a PhD after getting a bachelor's degree in the field? Do people generally get a master's before getting a PhD, or is this optional? What would make one decide to get a master's or pursue a PhD directly after undergrad?</p>

[Scientificmind]

<p>How long does it take to get a Ph.D after a Bachelors? There is no specific answer for that, as it varies from school to school and program to program. You can go from Masters to Ph.D or just go straight from Bachelors to Ph.D. In some fields, a Masters is all you really need. But in other fields a Ph.D is required, especially if you want to do independent research. Also bear in mind, in some cases a Ph.D can make you “overqualified”. So if you’re debating on whether or not to go for a Ph.D, make the choice very carefully. You don’t want to go into a program only to toil in post-doc work.</p>

[gravenewworld]

<p>You should almost NEVER pay for any degree past a BS (few exceptions). Don’t add on more student loan debt for a MS, get a company to pay if you can. Many companies consider a BS+5 years experince = a MS+0 experience or BS+10 years exp= PhD+0 years experience anyway. It’s quite standard. PhDs in science and engineering are free however, and you can always leave your program if you are unhappy with a free MS.</p>

[b_r_um]

<p>It all varies but most disciplines certainly have standards and averages.</p>

<p>In math, most students would enter a PhD program straight out of college. 5-6 years seem to be a typical amount of time to complete the PhD, though a lot of it depends on the undergraduate background and specialty that students are going into. For example, the tippy top programs routinely graduate their students in 4 years because their students walk through the door with 1-2 year’s worth of graduate courses under their belt already. Graduate students in combinatorics sometimes finish in 3 years because they can start their research right away, while students in algebraic geometry might spend 3 years learning background material before they can begin their own research. </p>

<p>And to second gravenewworld, science PhD students should never have to pay for their education themselves. You should be able to get support in the form of a stipend and tuition waiver either directly from your program or from an outside fellowship (preferably a combination of both for added flexibility).</p>

[spdf]

<p>In sciences you typically go straight for a PhD after college, and it generally takes 5-6 years. In your second year of grad school you take a series of qualifying exams that are essentially your final acceptance into the PhD program. If you pass the qualifiers, you are in for the PhD. If you fail the qualifiers, you are diverted to a master’s degree and a quick exit from the school. Most people who get master’s degrees in science today either chose to leave the program or failed their qualifiers. And while a PhD in science will make you overqualified for entry-level jobs, it opens up a far wider field of opportunities. I don’t know anyone who “toiled” at post-doc work – post-doc positions are a sweet spot in the educational ladder where you get all the fun of research without any of the pressures of grad school or tenure track demands.</p>

[sschoe2]

<p>The department where I got my Masters (a H_LL Hole) 5-8 years was typical. There are a lot of things to watch out for. One a lot of PI and university departments are eager for you to join as that means cheap techs for the labs and cheap TA’s to teach undergrad science. I watched my PI make use people as techs and make no effort to mentor them. Those that were good he held them back as long as he could to wring more research out of them My friend who was the best researcher i ever saw had to get the provost involved after 7 years and he wanted nothing do with science after that. If you had trouble he let you languish until you quit (more than 75% did).</p>

<p>The job prospects for Ph.D’s are very dim. There is a huge glut so most end up doing $35k post-docs while they search for a real job for years. Most never get real jobs and leave the field. Several of my colleagues were discussing hiding the Ph.D so they could apply for BS/MS level jobs.</p>

<p>In short I don’t recommend science grad degrees. They are a trap that exploits real smart suckers. That is why they are typically free. Noone in their right mind would pay for one. Go to professional school or business school or go engineering.</p>

[gravenewworld]

<p>The reality of the situation as evidenced by the comments in this nature editorial:
[Reality</a> check : Nature : Nature Publishing Group](<a href=“http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/full/477005b.html]Reality”>Reality check | Nature)</p>

<p>I think the one responder put it nice and succinctly when he/she wrote that there are a million protocols to protect and legislate the way you treat lab animals for experiments, but not a single one on the books for how to treat grad students and post docs.</p>

<p>You’ll be nothing more than a cog in this system:
<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist[/url]”>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[warblersrule]

<p>

@sschoe2

The job prospects for Ph.D’s are very dim. There is a huge glut so most end up doing $35k post-docs while they search for a real job for years. Most never get real jobs and leave the field. Several of my colleagues were discussing hiding the Ph.D so they could apply for BS/MS level jobs. In short I don’t recommend science grad degrees.

Yes, you didn’t like your chemistry program; I think we’re all aware of that. While your experience is extremely unfortunate, it certainly does not grant you the wisdom to comment on the job prospects for all science degrees.</p>

<p>For instance, I’ve never met an unemployed geologist. Have you?</p>

<p>

@Nature 473

Despite the recent economic downturn, job prospects for geoscientists are excellent and are set to get even better. The latest data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics suggest that in 2018 there will be some 323,000 positions for geoscientists in the United States, about 23% more than in 2008. “If you have a degree, you’d have to be dead or dead lazy to not get a job,” says Christopher Keane, AGI’s director of technology and communications.</p>

<p>Yet there’s even more room for optimism, says Leila Gonzales, a workforce analyst with the AGI. The BLS data only project changes in the number of jobs, she notes. They don’t account for increased opportunities in the United States due to retirements, which will strike government, academia and the private sector alike during the next 10–15 years. This window of opportunity is the result of a collapse in commodity prices in the mid-1980s that was followed by a precipitous decline in geoscientists’ salaries, which in turn triggered a drop in academic enrolments. In the next decade or so, many of those graduates from the early 1980s will be nearing the ends of their careers, boosting job availability upon their retirement.</p>

<p>And the number of retirements could be substantial, says Gonzales. About 12% of today’s geoscientists are expected to retire by 2018, meaning that net job availability for geoscientists in the United States should have increased between 2008 and 2018 by around 35%, she says.</p>

<p>Demand for geoscientists is expected to rise worldwide, not just in the United States. Statistics compiled by the AGI for the International Union of Geological Sciences indicate that the three regions that produce the most geoscience graduates each year — the United States; Europe and Russia combined; and China — aren’t even meeting their own domestic needs, much less global requirements.</p>

<p>The number of geoscience degrees granted in the United States each year (about 1,060 master’s and 650 PhD degrees) has remained relatively stable for the past 15 years or more, says Gonzales. That steady, yet inadequate, pace of new entries into the field, paired with the wave of retirements during the next 10–15 years, almost guarantees that demand for skilled geoscientists can only increase.

@Environ. Sci. Technol.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects an overall 19% increase in all geoscience-related occupations between 2006 and 2016, which is 9% faster than the growth rate for all U.S. occupations. The highest growth rates in geoscience jobs will be in the management, scientific, and technical consulting (78%) which includes the majority of natural resource and hazard mitigation opportunities, waste management and remediation (37%), and finance and insurance (35%) sectors. Considering that a graduate degree is required for the majority of geoscience occupations, and that the number of geoscience graduate degrees conferred per year from U.S. institutions has averaged 1700 since 1995, the supply of new geoscience graduates to the workforce does not meet current demands, much less the projected increase in demand over the coming years. </p>

<p>Additionally, the aging geoscience workforce, with approximately 50% of geoscience professionals within 10−15 y of retirement, is cause for major concern within geoscience-employing industries.

@Science 8 August 2008

“I can’t think of any unemployed hydrogeologists,” says Roy Haggerty, an associate professor of hydrogeology at Oregon State University, Corvallis. It’s easy to see why. Water is essential, irreplaceable, and, as populations and economies grow, increasingly in demand and endangered.</p>

<p>Environmental consulting companies, which employ about 80% of hydrogeologists in the United States, currently report four jobs for every qualified graduate, according to the American Geological Institute (AGI). Government regulatory agencies, national laboratories, and mining and oil companies also need them. New niches open regularly as hydrogeologists team up with scientists in other disciplines to grapple with huge environmental challenges, such as forecasting how changing climate will affect water resources and aquatic life. And signs are that the future will hold more of the same. As Richelle Allen-King, a hydrogeology professor at the University at Buffalo in New York, puts it, “Water problems are not going away.”

@Science 8 August 2008

Geologist Amy Simonson loves her work. She spends her days in the countryside around Charlottesville, Virginia, measuring stream flow and groundwater levels for the state’s Department of Environmental Quality. The job, she says, is exactly what she wanted.</p>

<p>Simonson, 25, began her job hunt in 2007 after getting a master’s degree in geology from the University of Delaware, Newark. She had one condition: She wanted to spend as much time as possible in the field, not in front of a microscope or a computer. Taking a scattershot approach, she applied for jobs in geophysics, engineering, environmental consulting, and geographic information system mapping. She didn’t have to wait long. “I got offered a lot of stuff,” she says.</p>

<p>Simonson’s experience isn’t rare. For many young geoscientists now embarking on careers, the job outlook is very good. The current federal research funding situation means it’s less rosy for those on an academic research track. But for those in industry, the number of geoscience jobs will grow by 22% from 2006 to 2016, much faster than the projected total of a 10% increase for all occupations, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.</p>

<p>“In general, the market is hot,” says Cindy Martinez, who analyzes geoscience workforce issues at the American Geological Institute (AGI) in Alexandria, Virginia. “Functionally, there’s no unemployment of geoscientists right now.”

</p>

[sschoe2]

<p>[Chemjobber:</a> Well, that’s not good news](<a href=“http://chemjobber.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-thats-not-good-news.html]Chemjobber:”>Chemjobber: Well, that's not good news)</p>

<p>41% of chemistry Ph. D.'s are employed full time, 60% are in academia and I would bet only 10-20% of those are tenured professors. The rest are post-docs, nontenured professors, and research associates making a mediocre at best salary with little room for advancement.</p>

[sschoe2]

<p>BTW I read the same crap about chemistry degrees a few years ago.</p>

<p>

because unemployment is practically nonexistent for chemists few trained chemists ever leave the field

</p>