
The PhD Deluge - ryan_j_naughton
http://priceonomics.com/the-phd-deluge/
======
wsxcde
A lot of these analyses seem to wish away the agency of graduate students.
These people seem to think that we're all being tricked into joining graduate
programs by professors making us false promises of unattainable faculty
positions. In my case, both my masters thesis advisor and my phd advisor were
open about the fact that academic jobs are hard to come by and are not even
too much fun in the current funding scenario.

I chose to do a phd knowing full well that it was _not_ the right choice in
terms of maximizing my earning potential. Certainly it wasn't a guarantee of a
better job because I already had a job in a group where about half my
colleagues were phds from more or less the same set of universities I was
applying to.

For me, the phd has been a mind-opening experience. It has let me learn things
and think about things in an environment that simply doesn't exist outside of
academia. An environment where there's no pressure to deliver something useful
_right now_.

It's possible I'm misreading him, but I've certainly run into a fair number of
John-types. These guys are ridiculously smart and have faced almost no failure
at all. Years and years of a positive feedback loop involving success and
self-esteem seems to leave these people with a vastly inflated opinion of
their own abilities. And this seems to affect in two ways: (a) their ego
leaves them vulnerable to misreading cautious statements about the future (b)
they can't seem to reconcile themselves to the fact that they might just be
mediocre and not extraordinary.

For example, if a professor says, "the market for academic jobs is very
competitive but one should be attainable if your thesis has a significant
impact on the field." I read it as, "you have to be among the top 10 or so
among all the CS phds in the entire world graduating that year. In other
words, I don't have a chance in hell unless I get very very lucky." A John-
type will think they have a good chance. It's not surprising at all to me that
so many of them end up so bitter.

~~~
tdaltonc
In my experience, CS faculty are more open to the idea that their PhD students
probably won't be pursuing academic careers. In biology, the attitude is more
like, "if you don't want to be a professor, what are you doing here?"

------
FD3SA
This is an interesting problem to have. I myself have a romanticized notion of
PhDs, as I consider pushing the frontier of scientific knowledge to be the
most important of human endeavors.

However, the nature of technological progress has turned academia into a place
where intelligent people maintain a holding pattern prior to beginning their
careers. The issue with this is that, not only are they poorly paid, but they
may also be contributing to a system that is looking more and more like a
pyramid scheme.

At its root, this is a government funding problem. Particularly in the US, the
dysfunctional state of the government has caused science funding to be cut at
all levels. This may be a reflection of the American public's preferences, as
it appears science is no longer a prime policy objective in Washington DC.

In my opinion, government has a few responsibilities that it needs to carry
out well:

\- Infrastructure (including healthcare, sanitation, power, education, etc.)

\- Defense

\- Upholding the Rule of Law (police, courts, etc.)

\- Basic Scientific Research (Academia, research labs, etc.)

It increasingly appears that the U.S. no longer believes the last point falls
within the realm of the government. This is an interesting development, as one
of the key contributors to American economic success in the past century has
been the massive state investment into scientific and engineering research
(WWI, WWII, Manhattan, Apollo, NASA, ARPA, etc.).

Notably, most of these investments occurred during wartime. It appears that
government support of scientific research surges during war, and declines in
peace. This is a paradox that needs to be resolved in order to make better use
of the nation's intellectual resources.

As much as I love commercial programming, I would rather be doing basic
research, and I'm sure many on HN feel the same.

I honestly hope that a group of wealthy and powerful entrepreneurs such (PG,
Elon Musk, Ellison, Zuck, etc.) band together and start advocating for a
scientific research initiative whose funding is constant (inflation adjusted)
over at least twenty years, and is focused on basic scientific breakthroughs.

A model worth studying would be Janelia Farms, funded by the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute [1].

1\. [http://janelia.org/](http://janelia.org/)

~~~
michaelochurch
The PhD Bubble is a fucking crime. As you noted, it's a pyramid scheme.

There used to be BA-level research positions, to get your feet wet in
industrial research for a couple years, and possibly to help one get into a
PhD program on advantageous terms. The problem is that those BA-level research
positions, while they still exist, are now _all fucking filled with PhDs_.

The public sector (politicians more than bureaucrats) is short-sighted and the
private-sector is worse. Basic research has been shuttered, and I think that's
largely because of the anti-intellectual culture of the US. Basic research is
seen as something "eggheads" do, and the mainstream distrusts people like us
for, you know, believing the universe is 13.7 billion years old based on
science rather than 6,000 years old based on a book.

 _Notably, most of these investments occurred during wartime. It appears that
government support of scientific research surges during war, and declines in
peace. This is a paradox that needs to be resolved in order to make better use
of the nation 's intellectual resources._

This is sad, but accurate. Average people respond more to the carrot than the
stick, but the sorts of people who tend to acquire power respond more strongly
to the stick, and only an existential and violent threat can bring them to do
the right thing. Societies seem to degrade until war of some kind
(international, or an internal revolution) is inevitable. War is the worst way
of resolving those building-up tensions and corruption, but no one has come up
with anything that works better. We're about 25 years away from a violent
revolution due to internal inequality in the U.S. and, while I'd love to see a
reversal of course that avoids bloodshed, I feel like the odds are against it.
We just suck as a species.

~~~
yuhong
I wonder if
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition)
would help.

------
domdip
TL;DR: blurby article from last year that confuses the academic job market in
general, the private job market for an average PhD, and one person's bizarre
experience looking for a private job despite graduating from an elite CS PhD
program in a very good economy.

------
MaysonL
For those interested in Chand John's article, here's the link:
[http://chronicle.com/blogs/phd/2013/09/19/the-ph-d-
industry-...](http://chronicle.com/blogs/phd/2013/09/19/the-ph-d-industry-
gap/)

Why the author of the posted article couldn't link to it is beyond my
understanding.

------
jermo
What I find interesting is that the PhD-industry gap has existed for many
years but more people seem to be enrolling in PhD programs, as shown in the
article.

~~~
nycthbris
I'd think this is because in a bad job market, people are sold the idea that
getting an advanced degree will expand their opportunities later.
Unfortunately not many people know that obtaining a PhD != easily finding a
job afterwards.

------
Create
Given that cheap and disposable trainees — PhD students and postdocs — fuel
the entire scientific research enterprise, it is not surprising that few
inside the system seem interested in change. A system complicit in this sort
of exploitation is at best indifferent and at worst cruel.

[http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110302/full/471007a.html](http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110302/full/471007a.html)

Potential missing staff in some areas is a separate issue, and educational
programmes are not designed to make up for it. On-the-job learning and
training are not separated but dynamically linked together, benefiting to both
parties. In my three years of operation, I have unfortunately witnessed cases
where CERN duties and educational training became contradictory and even
conflicting.

[http://ombuds.web.cern.ch/blog/2013/06/lets-not-confuse-
stud...](http://ombuds.web.cern.ch/blog/2013/06/lets-not-confuse-students-and-
fellows-missing-staff)

The numbers make the problem clear. In 2007, the year before CERN first
powered up the LHC, the lab produced 142 master's and Ph.D. theses, according
to the lab's document server. Last year it produced 327. (Fermilab chipped in
54.) That abundance seems unlikely to vanish anytime soon, as last year ATLAS
had 1000 grad students and CMS had 900.

In contrast, the INSPIRE Web site, a database for particle physics, currently
lists 124 postdocs worldwide in experimental high-energy physics, the sort of
work LHC grads have trained for.

The situation is equally difficult for postdocs trying to make the jump to a
junior faculty position or a permanent job at a national lab. The Snowmass
Young Physicists survey received responses from 956 early-career researchers,
including 343 postdocs. But INSPIRE currently lists just 152 "junior"
positions, including 61 in North America. And the supply of jobs isn't likely
to increase, says John Finley, an astrophysicist at Purdue University in West
Lafayette, Indiana, who is leading a search to replace two senior particle
physicists.

"How should we make it attractive for them [young people] to spend 5,6,7 years
in our field, be satisfied, learn about excitement, but finally be qualified
to find other possibilities?" \-- H. Schopper

Indeed, even while giving complete satisfaction, they have no forward vision
about the possibility of pursuing a career at CERN.

This lack of an element of social responsibility in the contract policy is
unacceptable. Rather than serve as a cushion of laziness for supervisors, who
often have only a limited and utilitarian view when defining the opening of an
IC post, the contract policy must ensure the inclusion of an element of social
justice, which is cruelly absent today.

[http://staff-
association.web.cern.ch/content/unsatisfactory-...](http://staff-
association.web.cern.ch/content/unsatisfactory-contract-policy)

The long-held but erroneous assumption of never-ending rapid growth in
biomedical science has created an unsustainable hypercompetitive system that
is discouraging even the most outstanding prospective students from entering
our profession—and making it difficult for seasoned investigators to produce
their best work. This is a recipe for long-term decline, and the problems
cannot be solved with simplistic approaches. Instead, it is time to confront
the dangers at hand and rethink some fundamental features of the US biomedical
research ecosystem.

[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/09/1404402111](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/09/1404402111)

Since 1982, almost 800,000 PhDs were awarded in science and engineering (S&E)
fields, whereas only about 100,000 academic faculty positions were created in
those fields within the same time frame. The number of S&E PhDs awarded
annually has also increased over this time frame, from ~19,000 in 1982 to
~36,000 in 2011. The number of faculty positions created each year, however,
has not changed, with roughly 3,000 new positions created annually.

[http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/full/nbt.2706.html](http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n10/full/nbt.2706.html)

One is simply that graduate students represent the cheapest form of labor, and
so graduate programs have expanded to keep researchers well supplied. The end
result is that 8,000 people get a PhD in the biological sciences each year,
far more than can ever hope to find faculty positions. Only about 20 percent
of them end up staying in research positions, yet graduate education generally
provides training in nothing but research.

The problem is that everybody who would actually implement these reforms at
the institutional level won't like them. Successful researchers will have to
accept smaller and more focused labs and see their smaller pool of grad
students distracted by training in areas other than research. University
administrators will see their departments and incoming money both shrink. You
can count on many of them to resist.

[http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/is-us-biomedical-
rese...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/is-us-biomedical-research-
heading-for-a-breakdown/)

~~~
my3681
On reliable help to professors:

I work as a research engineer (MS EE) at the University of Alabama, and we
have experienced a similar problem for our faculty members. The problem has
been mitigated to a degree by help from professional staff (like myself) at
various "centers" on campus that explore more practical applications of the
research being conducted.

We do not receive a stipend for any extra work we do for a professor, but in
just a few short years, our input has done wonders for building more complete
students.

As for the rise in PhDs, I can confirm the our engineering college is
pressuring faculty to graduate more PhDs. Our dean just had a meeting saying
we need to "double our PhD output" just to stay competitive. As with most
things, he admitted that it all boils down to money.

More PhD students means more potential funding. More funding means better
facilities. Better facilities means better quality students, which means a
better reputation. Better reputation leads to more/better grants coming your
way and the wheel goes round and round...

------
ballstothewalls
That graph is awful.

~~~
tdaltonc
Really? What makes you say that? I really like it.

~~~
ballstothewalls
I think two vertical axes with different scales is poor form. Especially when
one is measured in thousands (the cumulative scale) and the other is not. My
first thought looking at the graph was there was a convergence between annual
and cumulative PhD's awarded--which doesn't make any sense. I think it would
have been better done if it was just made into two graphs.

------
santaclaus
How did Chand John go about his job search? Did he leverage industry
connections that he made during internships? Did he leverage industry
connections made doing tech transfer for his research? I know of absolutely 0
PhDs who did these things and failed to find a job after graduation.

~~~
domdip
Something went terribly, consistently wrong in his job search for a Stanford
CS PhD in that economy to fail to land. I've always found his article to be an
odd piece of self-antipromotion. He's publicly admitting he landed a ton of
interviews and couldn't find common ground with a single company, which means
he either doesn't know how to choose companies or can't carry a conversation
for the duration of his interviews.

~~~
ScottBurson
I just reread that article, and I don't agree.

I think the problem is very clear: companies are reluctant to hire a
specialist for work outside his field, for the simple reason that they figure
he's likely to leave when he finds a job where he can develop his specialty.

I think 'santaclaus has a point. If your PhD is in a small specialty like
modeling human movement, you would be well advised to be developing industry
connections throughout your time in grad school, because there are only a few
jobs to be had doing that. (That's not to say that the expertise isn't
valuable to the few companies who need it.)

Conversely, if your PhD is in a hot area like distributed systems or data
mining, you probably don't have to worry about finding a job. It's the fact
that he specialized in a small area that made it difficult.

And actually, I think he was lucky. I'm sure it was tough getting all those
rejections, but in the end he found work in his field. He's probably much
better off than he would have been taking some more generic software job.

