
The Jobless Ph.D. Generation - jzila
http://demythify.com/?p=106
======
impendia
I am a math professor. My first Ph.D. student got a job outside of academia
and I was happy to support him fully and unreservedly.

But:

>students still come out with a very narrow window of extremely specialized
knowledge

Duh.

>Additional courses in broader topics such as writing and business would also
be beneficial (6).

 _Huh?_ This suggestion ignores the purpose of a Ph.D.: to _produce a piece of
original research_ , which is necessarily extremely specialized.

(And for that matter, if students in my Ph.D. program want to enroll in
courses in business, writing, or anything else, they can.)

If students or employers want alternative degree programs, that is well and
good, I encourage universities to begin offering them, and as a professor I
would be quite happy to teach and advise such students.

But I see no reason to dilute Ph.D. programs, which continue to serve the
purpose for which they were created.

~~~
potatolicious
> _" (And for that matter, if students in my Ph.D. program want to enroll in
> courses in business, writing, or anything else, they can.)"_

Do they have the time?

My undergrad program was extremely... focused (a word the administration would
no doubt use to describe it). In my entire 4.5 years I had exactly two non-
engineering electives, the rest of the schedule was a full stack of "core"
courses. This was not atypical at my school.

The result of which is that you create a bunch of people who are very narrowly
educated. I dodged that bullet with a combination of suicidal course loads
(e.g., taking a 7th course in a 6-core-course semester) and class-skipping.
Neither were good solutions and I only made it out by the skin of my teeth.

The problem here is that the definition of a Ph.D. for you is _extremely_
different from the definition of Ph.D. for most of your students. I think
there's next to no one whose primary objective with a Ph.D. is to produce a
piece of original research - it is always a means to another end: usually
career-oriented.

There is a dramatic misalignment of what you think you're doing there and what
your students think they're doing there.

~~~
Fomite
"Do they have the time?"

People in my program take Spanish. I knew one person who did creative writing.
We actually have a class on consulting in a closely related department that
you could manage to sell as an elective. I took some only faintly related
classes in another department.

It's not easy, and it will add time (that's the true problem with a PhD,
balancing 'Things I want To Do' and 'I want to finish') but it's doable. PhDs
are also often much less "locked in" to coursework than undergraduates,
especially after their first few years.

"The problem here is that the definition of a Ph.D. for you is extremely
different from the definition of Ph.D. for most of your students. I think
there's next to no one whose primary objective with a Ph.D. is to produce a
piece of original research - it is always a means to another end: usually
career-oriented."

I can't think of a single person in my program who wasn't fully aware that a
PhD is about producing original research. They might struggle with _doing_
that, but it's a known and understood requirement.

There's a career-oriented degree. It's a Masters.

~~~
potatolicious
Oh, I do believe your students are aware that they must produce original
research, but I'm willing to bet that none of them see it as a primary
objective, but rather a means to the real objective: a career in academia.

The Ph.D. program, in our times at least, is pitched as a quid pro quo: you
produce some original research, something worthwhile and of substance, to add
to the sum of human knowledge, and in exchange they gain access to an academic
career.

The problem is that there are a _lot_ of people paying the quid, and barely
anyone getting the quo. Unless you are a student of independent wealth, you
are not producing this research out of the goodness of your heart with no
greater, more important objective. To the vast, vast majority of people doing
their Ph.D's, a Ph.D. _is_ a career maneuver.

~~~
tansey
I'm not sure what PhD students you're hanging around, but all the ones I know
are _painfully_ aware of the fact that we're making terrible career choices.
No one expects to get a job as a professor right out of the program, except
maybe a few people who hope to get a job at a teaching college. Even those who
are going to do a post doc are doing it with full belief that it is unlikely
to lead to a tenure-track position. And all of that is at a top 10 CS PhD
program.

PhD students generally just love research. We sign up for this because it's
what we enjoy doing. Companies try hard to recruit us away, but we stay in
spite of that, because why would we want to do anything other than work on the
one problem we've always wanted to solve?

Maybe it's different in the humanities, but every STEM PhD student I've ever
met has low expectations, with the exception of one-- and she has a first
authorship on a Nature paper and is working on a Science submission, so I
still think she's pretty well-grounded.

~~~
Fomite
Exactly. Most of the ones I've known are profoundly aware of the job market -
hell, most of us looked at the jobs we could have gotten with MS degrees and
chosen to continue.

Honestly, at this point, finding out that the job market is grim takes only a
shred of research, and absolutely the kind of research you should do before
applying.

------
tensor
Here we go again. HN with the anti-academic stance. Almost every week now, we
get something like this.

Why is everyone here so insecure that they feel the need to beat up on those
who choose knowledge instead of money? You don't go into a PhD to get rich.
You do it to learn. If you want to learn, do science on your own. Let's see
some detailed reports, complete with hypothesis, methods, data, and
conclusions.

Nothing is stopping you. As for these articles, they are not science. There
are infinitely more of these than actual science by the HN crowd. That is
because zero startup science articles come through here. The occasional
industry science piece comes up, but even most of those are collaborations
with academia.

If you are truly so passionate about science, prove it with actions.

~~~
aortega
IMHO Academia is the anti-startup. It's in direct competition with angel-
investors. Let's see, the path of academia is:

1) Finish college

2) Do PhD

3) Get funding from gov. to do startup or academic project.

Angel investor path is:

1) Drop from college

2) Get funding from investor.

Investors don't want 30 year old PhDs. They want 20 year old dropouts that
will work 22 hs per day. It makes economic sense.

~~~
tensor
Yes, and none of this has anything to do with science, which is the point of a
PhD. It is not a path to a startup. Startups and businesses are completely
irrelevant to academia, as they should be.

A PhD is about science and learning. If you don't do science, or cannot do
science, then your opinion about the academic system is irrelevant.

Having gone through it myself I will be the first to tell you of it's
problems. But to compare it to the non-science world is a complete joke. Want
to make a difference to science? Demonstrate an alternative implementation.

Beyond that, if you went into it for the money, it's your own mistake that you
need to take responsibility for. Don't try to paint yourself as the victim.
You were never promised riches, only knowledge in a subject of your own
choosing.

~~~
aortega
>Startups and businesses are completely irrelevant to academia

Yes but they compete for the same kind of people: Talented, persistent and
technical-minded persons willing to sacrifice a huge part of their lifes for
their careers.

Should be goal of angel investors to "steal" those human resources from
academia. Ergo, anti-academia bias in HN.

~~~
marincounty
I'm sorry, but I've seen too many Startups hire friends--not "Talented,
persistent and technical-minded persons willing to sacrifice a huge part of
their lifes for their careers."

I wish Startups, Businesses, and Government would hire the best and the
brightest, but nepotism and networking seem to be more important factor. So
many guys who got rich in the Startup world--owe a lot to luck. They are
usually in deep denial, until the company is sold, or goes under. I had a
friend who got lucky with a gaming company. He went from a humble guy to
someone I just couldn't listen to. What bothered me was he never let me in on
the "game" early on. I guess he wasn't much of a friend? And that's why I
never kept in touch. (This is not geared to you, but your post got me thing
about this industry.)

------
HarryHirsch
This is a weak piece, it overlooks many things.

First, there seems to be the idea that a PhD's place is in academia. Where is
this idea even coming from? Back in a different time I got a degree in
chemistry in Germany, and the idea was that you would sign up with one if the
chemical companies. The degree program was very thorough and broad and lasted
five years, and you would start work, be given a mentor, and do anything
chemical. Your degree equipped you to do that, it was very broad, if it was
chemistry you had heard of it. A PhD was required, chemical technicians would
be trained on the job. The lesson here is that a broad degree makes you more
employable, but you cannot sell this idea when students have to raise their
own funds to pay for their degree and when state and federal funding lines for
universities keep shrinking.

But what happened was several things: the great monoliths that in Germany had
a standing like Microsoft or Google were broken up and sold off (except the
BASF), and the perennial pharmco crisis started.

There is another lesson, I think: deep science requires deep pockets that only
a large, established company can provide. Startups are no solution: it seems
that the big pharmcos are now turning into brokers that acquire startups, in-
house projects aren't done any longer, instead you acquire a startup, and
testing is contracted out abroad. Another problem: no one cooks up their own
compounds any longer, you contract out to a Chinese contract shop that employs
PhDs from China. I'm not sure if this is cheaper or better (there is something
to be said for short communication lines - just walk up a floor), but it is
current practice.

Also: at my second-tier state school the quality of applicants started really
going up after 2009, when the crisis had settled in. To me this means that
private jobs have disappeared, and universities aren't hiring much either.

This is an economic problem, and I really can't see how turning universities
into trade schools could be helpful to create jobs. Neither do I see how
increased reliance on privately-funded research institutes would help - no
matter how big their endowment they would still be competing for external
funding, the biggest source of which is the NIH. But the NIH keeps getting its
funding cut.

There's the other problem: the government isn't funding science as much as it
ought to.

~~~
ChristianMarks
_First, there seems the idea that a PhD 's place is in academia. Where is this
idea even coming from?_

It's in the air, in the environment. Perhaps your circumstances are different,
but in the US the overproduction of Ph.D.s is sufficient to sustain at least
one business: The Versatile Ph.D.
[http://versatilephd.com/](http://versatilephd.com/).

The online blogging on the phenomenon is hard to miss.

~~~
HarryHirsch
(The blog has disappeared. 401 - Authentication required)

Yes, this is this systemic problem in the US. It started with many second-tier
schools opening grad schools to compete for NIH and NSF funds, which at that
time were freely available. The career path for those graduates would be to go
into teaching at other second-tier schools, or at four-year colleges.

But now, after the crisis struck, even top-tier graduates have problems, and
they are now being hired by second-tier schools to compete for less external
funding. This leaves no way out for the graduates of weaker programs.

Another problem: the quality of the applicants for PhD at second-tier schools.
Man, it's awful, it is. Top tier schools are as large as they want to be, and
they hire whomever they like. Lesser schools try to make to with the rest that
didn't get into the top places, and it's no fun, let me tell you that.

I can't see how the endgame will play out, but I'm glad that I have a job and
that I am support staff. (Note: universities will always need support staff,
and because they _need_ them, they _will_ find funds to pay them.

~~~
ChristianMarks
_(The blog has disappeared. 401 - Authentication required)_

My tremendous error: it should have been
[http://versatilephd.com](http://versatilephd.com), not
[http://versatilephd.org](http://versatilephd.org).

------
analog31
When I was finishing my PhD in 1993, I told my advisor that I had received an
industry job offer. I also mentioned this at interviews for two academic
positions. The response of my advisor, and of interviewers, was along the
lines of: "If you've got an industry job offer in this climate, why would you
even consider applying for academic jobs?"

~~~
Fomite
I've met at least two Ecology professors who bring up the idea that, for a
population at replacement rate, there's only one new faculty job for each
current faculty member's students. One.

I've been in several departments that are very welcoming to industry and non-
profits. What they tend not to be welcoming toward is the idea that, because
you're not headed to academia, you can either half-ass or rush your research.

~~~
ryguytilidie
I would actually argue that for each current faculty members job, there are <1
jobs, because many of these jobs will be cut completely by next generation.

~~~
Fomite
Hence the "at replacement" assumption. They usually also point out that even
if the field is _doubling_ in size, that only moves up the number to 2.

------
streptomycin
_After entering a Ph.D. program, it quickly became obvious that when in
academia, the only respectable job is considered to be, you guessed it,
academia._

The whole article relies on that sentence, but it's not supported by anything
but an anecdote. Certainly that was not my experience. Although I did pick an
advisor who was very practical and worked in industry before coming back to
academia, I don't recall any of my friends feeling like they were being
pressured towards academia (this is across many departments at many schools).

Similarly, I'm not worried about jobless PhDs. If you're smart enough to get a
technical PhD, you're smart enough to do many things (check the unemployment
rate by degree level if you don't believe me). Friends who have gone the
postdoc path typically chose that over more lucrative and stable job offers
from industry, and with full knowledge that it could very likely lead them
nowhere in their career. You might be ignorant of the harsh realities of
becoming a tenured professor when you start your PhD, but you certainly aren't
by the time you finish.

Of course, these are just my anecdotes... but I guess my point is that I
probably wouldn't submit my anecdotes to HN without something more meaningful
backing them.

~~~
mjn
Yeah, that doesn't fit my experience either. I meet plenty of people with PhDs
who aren't in academia but who are perfectly well respected by academics. Many
of them still do research and come to conferences, too, because in CS many
industry labs also publish research papers [1]. Some of those jobs are _more_
respected than academic positions are, even among academics. For example,
Pixar employees are bigger big-shots at SIGGRAPH than just about any academics
are.

[1] Example:
[http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html](http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html)

------
jds375
Speaking as en ex-physics major and student with their heart previously set on
a Ph.D. and academic career, I can relate to the sentiment at the end of this
article. Many of my peers (undergraduate and graduate researchers) looked down
on non-academic jobs. This is a sentiment that definitely needs to change.
It'll make everyone happier.

------
tedsanders
I'm a PhD student, and pursing non-academic work after graduate school is
totally normal and expected. Many of my advisor's former students have entered
industry, so how could she not both expect and accept it? I wonder where this
attitude is most prevalent. I imagine it varies across country, region,
university, department, etc.

Edit: That said, I don't think my advisor does a good job preparing us for
industry.

~~~
HarryHirsch
You don't need preparation for industry, you need a professor with connections
into industry. If your PhD mentor cannot place students you are indeed in
trouble.

------
okadaka
I think you generalized some odd cases. I know a few CS and physics professors
as friends. Every reasonable professor knows that there are way fewer academic
jobs than PhD graduates. To expect all your students to go to academia is
silly & is not the norm among professors.

Surely, a professor should strive to have his/her students graduate with
sufficient publication record to be suitable for an academic job. Not everyone
will have it upon graduation. And it is not the sole point that you must go to
academia!

In some fields, there are research jobs outside of academia (eg in CS, Google,
IBM, Microsoft, Intel). And in most fields, if you go to industry you make way
more money. You just don't get tenure, sabbatical and as much freedom, but it
is hardly a failure.

------
auctiontheory
The otherwise well-written article omits to mention that most current PhD
students should have thought a few moves ahead and not matriculated in the
first place. That's the real problem. PhD programs should no more need to
teach "how to be a consultant" than BA programs should need to teach remedial
algebra and writing.

------
ChristianMarks
Articles like this are almost enough motivation to start a movement that I
would call Technologists Against Academia. The premise is that since
technologists are generally second-class citizens in academia, they should not
support the work and unattainable careers of its first class citizens.

~~~
Fomite
Everywhere I've been, good technologists - right alongside good lab managers -
are universally well regarded, and many professors I know will insulate their
techs jobs from the vagaries of grant funding as best they can. And when labs
do hit rocky periods, its usually the techs they worry about the most.

~~~
cryoshon
Being "well regarded" doesn't pay rent. As a technologist in academia, my
largest complaint is that the money is maybe 40% of industry rate.

Sure, if you're good, you get some kind of respect, but respect sans doctorate
still won't let you join the "academic" caste as far as the PhDs who tell you
what to do are concerned. If you're good, you're considered to be akin to an
especially fast and vigorous race horse, not a skilled jockey.

~~~
ChristianMarks
Even respect with a doctorate might not cut it.

------
MatthiasP
Too many students see a PhD as potential career and income booster instead of
what it really is, the first step in becoming a scientist.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
"Scientist" is a career.

------
mdda
There's also a completely mundane/political explanation (which would apply to
industry too). If you're really good, you're an asset to your boss, and your
success reflects well on them. So leaving is a backward step as far as they
are selfishly concerned. (Imagine your start-up's CTO left for a "better
opportunity"...)

------
jccalhoun
I did my dissertation in the humanities (and since I don't have a job I'm
putting off actual graduation as long as I can which is only until may...) and
I would love to get a job as a professor but at this point any job that would
let me use my skills would be something i would jump at.

------
infocollector
Is there a graph like this per department somewhere? Also: Can a degree get
you a job data (either industry/academia) would be very interesting to look at
for Bachelor's and Master's per degree.

