<p>I do know that PhD holders who wish to leave academia tend to have a tough time finding non-academic jobs but I always assumed that this was because it was difficult for them to adjust to the "real world". I've been hearing the opinion (on these boards) that employers would rather hire someone with just a BA as opposed to someone with a PhD.</p>
<p>My question: Would a job-seeker with just a BA be more attractive than a job-seeker with a BA as well as a PhD ceteris paribus?</p>
<p>I think you have misunderstood the general discussion here. There are in point of fact positions for which a PhD is demanded.....non academic jobs.</p>
<p>I'm obviously not talking about the kind of job for which a PhD is demanded. I'm talking about the kind of job which doesn't require a highly specialized skill set.</p>
<p>There are so many variables it is impossible to answer your question. decide what type of job you want, and then plan your education accordingly.</p>
<p>It depends on the industry and your degree. What area are you specifically interested in getting a phd?</p>
<p>Higher degrees commonly demand higher salaries, with obvious exceptions. That in mind, a savvy HR department would be wary of picking up too many applications from PhDs; as such, those applicants would definitely have to justify their increased salary more than any applicant in their "normal" pool would, something that someone with nothing but school experience past the BA would have hard time showing.</p>
<p>Of course, having a PhD doesn't ALWAYS mean more money. Sometimes there are more soft causes for rejection: employer feels intimidated, doesn't feel your PhD and the experience you had getting it is relevant enough to override the work experience required for the job, you might be older than others applying for the same job and it'd be more difficult for you to find your place in a peer group (so they think), etc. Of course, several of those are illegal in isolation, but who's to say they don't have some intangible effect?</p>
<p>This is, of course, all from hearsay and interpretation, not actual experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've been hearing the opinion (on these boards) that employers would rather hire someone with just a BA as opposed to someone with a PhD.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
My question: Would a job-seeker with just a BA be more attractive than a job-seeker with a BA as well as a PhD ceteris paribus?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The most economically rational reason that employers do this is that they will think you are 'overqualified' and will therefore be unhappy in a position that requires just a BA. As a corollary, they may fear that you are just using the job as a temporary waypoint until you can find a more suitable research job, for which you will leave the company. No company wants to invest the time in training you on company procedures only to have you quit for another job later (whereupon they will have to spend time and money recruiting somebody else for the job, etc.). These are all extra costs that companies rationally wish to avoid.</p>
<p>As a case in point, I have found that engineering students from the top schools like MIT and Stanford also have difficulty in getting jobs from certain engineering employers, especially the less prominent ones. The reason is similar to what was expressed above. Many of these employers are afraid that those kinds of students are just going to get bored at those companies and will be looking to leave shortly. Not only that, but they are afraid that they will tender a job offer (and thus hold a job open) only to see them turned down in favor of a sexier company like Google or Apple, and thus they wasted time in holding a position open for somebody who didn't take it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Higher degrees commonly demand higher salaries, with obvious exceptions. That in mind, a savvy HR department would be wary of picking up too many applications from PhDs; as such, those applicants would definitely have to justify their increased salary more than any applicant in their "normal" pool would, something that someone with nothing but school experience past the BA would have hard time showing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
that PhD holders who wish to leave academia tend to have a tough time finding non-academic jobs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You always have the option of simply not telling anybody about your PhD, and not demanding a higher salary. Nobody is forcing you to reveal your Phd. Lest you think this brings up an ethical issue, let me put it to you this way. Do you think that employer is telling you everything? Hardly so. So why do you feel obligated to tell everything to that employer? </p>
<p>Like I've always said: a resume is a marketing document, nothing more, nothing less. Its sole purpose is to get you the interview. That's all it is. It's not a testimonial to God. It's not the whole truth, nor is it meant to be. While you can't outright lie, you don't have to reveal the whole truth. Just like while companies can't outright lie in their advertising, we all know that they aren't telling the whole truth either. They are conveying a message in their advertising that makes them look attractive to potential customers. Resumes can be treated in the same manner.</p>
<p>The same philosophy holds in the interview. While you can't outright lie in the interview, you don't have to volunteer any information either. If they don't specifically ask you whether you have a PhD, you are under no obligation to tell them.</p>
<p>Re: the resume</p>
<p>That's very true and I agree. You don't HAVE to put that you have a PhD on there.</p>
<p>However, I imagine that's harder to let pass with a new PhD. "What have you been doing for the last 6 years?" is bound to come up if there's a gap in work experience, or if that work experience happens to be, say, three years of TAing at X University.</p>
<p>I can think of numerous good responses to that question. #1 reason is that you can say that you were a housewife/househusband. A lot of PhD students have children, especially newborn children, and hence, you can just say that you weren't working during those years because you were taking care of your children (which also has the great advantage of being a completely true statement - as you undoubtedly were spending a lot of time taking care of your children during that time). </p>
<p>Another way to get around that question is to say that you were running your own small business. And by that, I don't mean to lie, but to actually go out and establish a small business - i.e. a small consulting/contracting business. Many (probably most) PhD students probably can establish a consulting business on the side, even if only makes a few hundred dollars a year, or even if it loses a bit of money every year. For example, I know an English PhD student who was recently brought in to review a screenplay that somebody wrote. She didn't get paid much (I think only maybe $150 for a single night's work), but that doesn't matter. Now she can legitimately say that she had a small business that provided "creative consulting" services. Nobody has to know that the scope of your business is very small, and you don't have to volunteer that information. Keep in mind that the vast majority of "small businesses" in this country are indeed very small - that they are just part-time gigs that people do on the side, for very little profit, and often times just for the tax benefits. {For example, my old college roommate plays in a part-time band, and occassionally plays live shows at various clubs, and so he has registered that band as a small business for tax purposes; now he can buy gear - which he would be doing anyway because he loves music - and legally deduct it from his taxes as a 'business expense'.} But the point is, by establishing and running your own small business, even if it doesn't make any money, you can get around any uncomfortable questions about gaps in your resume. You can always just say that you were running your small business (which is a true statement).</p>
<p>Now, again, for those of you who are morally queasy about these suggestions, I am not advocating that you do anything with which you don't feel comfortable. I am simply pointing out that business is business. The act of hiring is a business transaction, nothing more. When 2 companies make a business transaction, they don't tell each other the whole truth, nor are they obligated to do so. When Bill Gates made the 'Deal of the Century' with IBM to provide the MS-DOS operating system for the IBM PC, he didn't tell IBM that he didn't even have an operating system but was just going to procure it from some other small local software company and just resell it to IBM. </p>
<p>And again, I would reiterate, the resume is a marketing document, nothing more, nothing less. Companies don't tell the 'whole truth' about their products in their advertising. No, they are going to advertise their products in the best possible light, and conveniently ignore any product weaknesses, in order to sell their product. Rush Hour 3 was a terrible movie with terrible reviews, but you will obviously find no mention of that in Time Warner's marketing. Time Warner is out to sell movie tickets, so they will say whatever is necessary to promote the movie. Similarly, the purpose of a resume is just to market and promote yourself. That's how business works.</p>
<p>NO NO NO, don't ever remove your PhD credential from your resume if you indeed have one. Many employers see this as a taboo and some even fired employers immediately after finding out they didn't reveal the whole truth.</p>
<p>I read about this from a science career forum. You guys might want to take a look at this thread:
<a href="http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/tools_resources/forum/view?id=33114%5B/url%5D">http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/tools_resources/forum/view?id=33114</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
NO NO NO, don't ever remove your PhD credential from your resume if you indeed have one. Many employers see this as a taboo
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt that it's really a taboo. They have to SPECIFICALLY ASK whether you have a degree or not. If they don't ask, you are under no obligation to tell them. Again, like I said, this is just a job interview. It's not a testimonial to God.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and some even fired employers immediately after finding out they didn't reveal the whole truth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, how's that? On what grounds could they fire you? Revealing the whole truth is not a requirement in the interview. After all, you didn't lie in the interview. You didn't claim to have a degree that you didn't have. You just didn't mention a degree that you did have, but that's perfectly valid. After all, if they don't specifically ask about it, then you are under no obligation to tell them. </p>
<p>Again, let me put it to you this way. Do you really think your employer is telling you the whole truth? Right. So why do you feel obligated to tell your employer the whole truth? Hiring/employment is a business arrangement, nothing more. Business partners don't tell each other the whole truth, nor are they expected to. Business is business.</p>
<p>Sakky, I personally don't believe that not putting your PhD degree on the resume is a sin. And yes, employers don't always tell you the whole truth, so why would anyone be obligated to tell them the whole truth? Unfortunately, real life isn't fair. This is not an argument of ethics, and it doesn't matter what you think. All it matters is what the employers think. </p>
<p>If you read the threads carefully, people were fired immediately after it had been found out. And these stories come from scientists who have years of industry experience. If you are not satisfied with it, go argue with the employers, not me, but please don't mislead people in this forum.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Forum Identity: DJM Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:22 AM
author: Derek
Risky proposition if there is language on anything you sign to start employement about full and truthful disclosure of education/background or for background checks. I personally know of a couple of cases of people fired on the spot when it was found out. </p>
<p>I don't think it is omitting the PhD degree per se that is the firing offense. Let's assume nobody notices the gap in the work history. If the job application has for example an "Education" section which starts with "last degree received..." and you put down the BA and "forget" the PhD and then sign below that all that you have written above is the truth - that is where they nail you. In at least one case I know someone did this for several years with promotions and everything and nobody was the wiser until he hit the glass ceiling and applied for a PhD level internal posting for which he saw himself qualified and then brought up the never before mentioned PhD. Was fired the same day. </p>
<p>background<< forum indexSearch MessagesForum Identity: Dave Jensen Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:39 PM
affiliation/organization: CareerTrax
NH said, "I don't feel it's necessarily unethical to omit things from your CV/Resume, especially if it's not particularly relevant to the job you're seeking. Many people adjust their CV/Resume for the job they're applying to - emphasizing some things and minimizing or altogether omitting others." </p>
<p>It really doesn't matter what a person things, it is how employers think. Omitting a PhD from a resume is a fraud, a fabrication that would entitle you to immediate dismissal. I can't imagine one employer of the hundreds I've worked with saying "Oh well, that's OK." </p>
<p>Dave
[/quote]
</p>
<p>OK kids - after 32 years in IT and being responsible for MANY hires and a few fires let me add my real life experience (at least to the extent real life and software engineering intersect).</p>
<p>1) Don't try to hide anything on your application - there's no point. Our ads always say something like "at least a BS and 3 years experience". No one is going to automatically exclude you from a position if published requirements are met. </p>
<p>2) If you leave something like a degree off, it WILL be found in the background check every company of any size runs before making an offer. Even five years ago you MIGHT have gotten away with leaving a degree off, but not any more. If you're invited back for an "offer interview" I promise you the first question will be "Why did you leave off your PhD?".</p>
<p>3) Your PhD may or may not be relevant directly to the job, but it WILL be respected, especially if it is from a quantitative field (at least in IT). Everyone knows how hard it is to get a job in higher ed. - we don't blame you for looking elsewhere.</p>
<p>4) If you're applying at a large company, they may have salary bands that are at least partially dependent on the applicant's level of education. If that is the case, the interview is the time to discuss your PhD and how it is (or is not) relevant to the position and the salary band it is in.</p>
<p>In 32+ years I have only once had trouble with a person who tried to hide an advanced degree. This was back in the late 70's, with a JD who had failed the Bar exam. Back then we only did a credit check, so we missed the degree. The guy spent all day complaining about how unfair the world was to someone with his superior ability. When he tried to use our office to start a legal advice business (we found out when one of his "clients" called looking for his "company" and got ours instead) he was out the door within the hour.</p>
<p>So - keep that degree on the resume - odds are you'll have to fill out a paper application that includes a line about "highest level of education" anyway. If you lie there, you've given the company an excuse to dump you at any time.</p>
<p>And - if you're interested in the experience of actual people with real PhDs entering "the real world" be sure to check out:</p>
<p>Thanks for the responses but I must say that this discussion has gone very much off-track.</p>
<p>Leaving a PhD off your resume? Why would you do this unless you were already convinced that the PhD is going to severly hinder your job prospects? Please note that we have not all consented to that so please don't consider it as a premise of your argument but rather as the point to be argued.</p>
<p>How true badman89. </p>
<p>So the answer in IT (in my experience) is: No, a PhD is not at a disadvantage to a BA/BS and may, depending on his field, have an advantage.</p>
<p>The only possible disadvantage would be in a very highly structured corporation where the posession of the PhD would force him out of the salary-band budgeted for the position. This can sometimes be negotiated, sometimes not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you read the threads carefully, people were fired immediately after it had been found out. And these stories come from scientists who have years of industry experience. If you are not satisfied with it, go argue with the employers, not me, but please don't mislead people in this forum.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not 'misleading' anyone on this forum. I am simply expressing my opinion that leaving things off your resume is a perfectly valid tactic. Why not? After all, like I said, what company out there tells you (either as a customer or an employee) the whole truth? Hence, why are people ethically obligated to return the favor? </p>
<p>As far as the examples provided, I would argue that each and every one of those fired scientists has grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit. After all, you can't legally fire somebody for leaving a qualification off their resume. It's not a lie, and they can't legally say that it is a lie. Unless they specifically asked you whether you have a PhD and you say no when in fact the answer is yes, then I believe that you are on safe legal ground. </p>
<p>Now, I will agree that I am not an employment lawyer, so perhaps we can check with one of them. But I personally don't see what the problem is. Omitting a qualification is not a lie. You are under no obligation to provide more information than the employer requests. </p>
<p>
[quote]
1) Don't try to hide anything on your application - there's no point. Our ads always say something like "at least a BS and 3 years experience". No one is going to automatically exclude you from a position if published requirements are met.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The presumption in this thread is that a PhD might hurt you in some jobs, as employers may think you're "overqualified". My response to that is to simply not list your degree. That's not a lie. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2) If you leave something like a degree off, it WILL be found in the background check every company of any size runs before making an offer. Even five years ago you MIGHT have gotten away with leaving a degree off, but not any more. If you're invited back for an "offer interview" I promise you the first question will be "Why did you leave off your PhD?".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know about that. I have worked with PLENTY of companies, large and small, that never bothered to perform background checks of any kind. And even if they do perform a background check, often times it will be just to check whatever you have said on your resume. Rarely will they then proceed further to see whether you may or may not have higher degrees that you didn't even list. </p>
<p>Furthermore, even if they did so, and they ask the question of why you omitted the PhD, you can just say that you didn't think it was relevent for the job at hand. What's the problem?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So - keep that degree on the resume - odds are you'll have to fill out a paper application that includes a line about "highest level of education" anyway. If you lie there, you've given the company an excuse to dump you at any time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In all my years in corporate, including in IT, I have NEVER ONCE filled such a paper application that asked such a question. </p>
<p>Even if they did, usually that application is pro-forma, meaning that practically nobody is going to read it. You just tell the truth on that application, and you'll be OK. Yes, somebody might ask why you omitted the PhD on your resume, but then listed it on the paper application. So then you reply that you just don't think the PhD is relevent for the job at hand, and you only list relevent qualifications on your resume. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So - keep that degree on the resume - odds are you'll have to fill out a paper application that includes a line about "highest level of education" anyway. If you lie there, you've given the company an excuse to dump you at any time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, personally, I would not want to work for a company that is going to consider me 'overqualified' just because I have a PhD. But that's me. I recognize that some people out there might want to work for such a company. And my response to them is to simply tailor your resume in a way that will give those companies what they want to see. It's not a lie to omit qualifications on your resume.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am not 'misleading' anyone on this forum. I am simply expressing my opinion that leaving things off your resume is a perfectly valid tactic. Why not? After all, like I said, what company out there tells you (either as a customer or an employee) the whole truth? Hence, why are people ethically obligated to return the favor? </p>
<p>As far as the examples provided, I would argue that each and every one of those fired scientists has grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit. After all, you can't legally fire somebody for leaving a qualification off their resume. It's not a lie, and they can't legally say that it is a lie. Unless they specifically asked you whether you have a PhD and you say no when in fact the answer is yes, then I believe that you are on safe legal ground. </p>
<p>Now, I will agree that I am not an employment lawyer, so perhaps we can check with one of them. But I personally don't see what the problem is. Omitting a qualification is not a lie. You are under no obligation to provide more information than the employer requests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, you are misleading others, because your opinions might cause people to believe that leaving PhD credentials off your resume is okay for employers, but in fact it's not. And hey, I am not saying it's a lie too. In fact, I originally thought it's alright, but apparently employers don't accept that, period.</p>
<p>Whether the employees have legal ground or not, I don't think anyone is willing to risk his/her career because someone on a college discussion forum thinks it's logically justified.</p>
<p>How can you ask this without saying what FIELD you are in?</p>
<p>I'm assuming you are in science/engineering, in which case the "problem" with PhDs is kind of related to one of sakky's points: PhD graduates are not "losing" to people with bachelor's, that should be obvious. It's difficult to find a place where you are rewarded appropriately for your degree, both in terms of salary and fit to your (now highly specific) area.</p>
<p>As far as leaving off your degree goes, I think people are missing the point. Being overqualified doesn't relate to how good of an employee you will be for your company of interest. The idea is that its probably in YOUR best interest to work in a place where you can use your talents. If you choose not to, that is your choice, and your resume can change accordingly. At no point are you choosing to lie.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, you are misleading others, because your opinions might cause people to believe that leaving PhD credentials off your resume is okay for employers, but in fact it's not. And hey, I am not saying it's a lie too. In fact, I originally thought it's alright, but apparently employers don't accept that, period.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well if that's the standard you want to use, then you might say that both you and I are "misleading" people. After all, no matter what possible advice we might give one way or the other regarding resumes, I'm quite certain there are SOME employers in the world who won't like it. For example, I freely agree that there are some employers who probably won't like the fact that you left off your PhD. On the other hand, there are other employers who won't mind a bit. Just like if I tell people to type their resumes with a certain font, I'm sure that there must be SOME employers out there who won't like that font and won't hire you because of it (and then there will be some employers who will like that font a lot). Hence, to use that standard of proof, ANY possible advice is misleading. </p>
<p>But look, we have to keep the entire process of hiring and employment in perspective. Let's be perfectly honest here. Companies will hire or not hire you, or will choose to terminate you or keep you onboard for any number of arbitrary reasons. You might not get hired simply because the guy just doesn't like the shirt you are wearing. Or the fact that you're a Yankees fan (and you say so in the interview), when, unbeknownst to you, your interviewer is a Red Sox fan. Similarly, you might get laid off for the same reasons (as most states are at-will states, meaning that an employer can fire you at any time for any reason or no reason at all). Of course the company will never SAY what the actual (arbitrary) reasons are for your getting laid off or not getting hired. But that doesn't change the fact that those are the reasons. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Whether the employees have legal ground or not, I don't think anyone is willing to risk his/her career because someone on a college discussion forum thinks it's logically justified.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again, see above. The truth of the matter is, no matter what you do, you're ALWAYS risking your career. The vast majority of us can lose our jobs at any time for any reason, or no reason at all. Anything you do might be used as a reason to terminate you. Not listing your PhD can be considered a risk. But listing it can be a risk too. EVERYTHING YOU DO is a risk. If you have a PhD and don't list it, that's a risk. But if you have a PhD and you DO list it, that's a risk too. Everything is a risk. People are always losing their jobs for completely arbitrary reasons.</p>
<p>What I am saying is that the firm can't actually fire you for cause. That's because you never actually lied. You never claimed a credential that you didn't have. You just simply didn't disclose a credential that you did have, and that's perfectly valid to do, sijmilar to how firms don't disclose everything to their employees. Sure, you can lose your job because you didn't disclose, but everybody can lose their jobs for any number of arbitrary reasons. So what? You just move on to the next job. I doubt that that company would actually try to badmouth you, because, like I said, you didnt' do anything wrong (and if the company did try to badmouth you by saying that you were fired for cause, then you could take them to court and win, because they didn't actually show cause). </p>
<p>But I do think I need to emphasize the point that nobody is really "jeopardizing" their career any more than it already is. You can follow every single little corporate rule, do everything completely on the up-and-up...and still lose your job anyway.</p>