
Why do so many people continue to pursue doctorates? - luu
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/bad-job-market-phds/479205/?single_page=true
======
jseliger
Having done so myself and observed lots of people do it:

1\. It's a way to (pointlessly) delay adulthood.

2\. Fear of the job market.

3\. Don't know what else to do.

4\. Magical thinking (despite the numerous articles out there, like mine
([http://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-
befor...](http://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-before-you-
start-grad-school-in-english-literature-the-economic-financial-and-
opportunity-costs/)) that attempt to dissuade it). I think this is the biggest
issue. In addition, there seems to be a Lake Woebegone effect: Everyone thinks
_they 're_ going to be above average.

EDIT: I forgot to add another important one: Grad school is pretty easy and
fun! You get to hang out on campus, think about ideas, take a minimal number
of classes, do a bit of teaching, and have copious free time. The problem is
that, as time advances and your priorities start changing (want a real life /
job, date people who don't date people whose lives aren't together, etc.),
reality starts to intrude. Many grad students have an unacknowledged Peter Pan
complex.

~~~
RIMR
I did really well when I finished my undergraduate program, and my professors
kept trying to get me to pursue a Doctorate or PhD. in my field. They were
really enthusiastic about it telling me that with my talents I deserve more
than a B.A.

None of them could give me a convincing answer as to how I would benefit long-
term for continuing my education. None of them could give me an example of a
job that I would be unable to get with my current level of education. All of
them admitted that it would require 4-6 more years of my life, and that even
with the best financial aid / scholarships, I would still be paying $60-100k
out-of-pocket for the experience.

So basically, it would have required me to put off getting a full time job to
instead drive myself deep into debt all while sacrificing all of my free-time
until I was 30.

Instead, I moved to Seattle, found a job in I.T. and I have been climbing the
corporate ladder ever since, making more than enough money to live comfortably
and save money. I was lucky enough to earn my B.A. without any student debt.

My degree isn't even in an I.T. field. I have a B.A. in Journalism! The thing
that has done more to further my resume has been my full-time employment and
my technical certifications. I get to expense my certifications to my
company...

Furthering my education would have ruined my future. Ending my education has
accelerated it. Sadly, I worry that this is going to become true of Undergrad
programs in the next decade, and that's not a good thing...

~~~
beambot
In STEM, if you don't get a financial offer along with your PhD program
acceptance letter, then you've probably just been politely rejected. The
financial offer will usually cover your living costs (a few $k per month), so
it won't cover any lost opportunity costs... but you shouldn't need to take on
debt to do your PhD in STEM. I'm guessing journalism is a different story!

For STEM, it's also true that certain job opportunities (eg. elite R&D
facilities) more-or-less require a PhD or equivalent levels of mastery. It's
possible to obtain those jobs after a long period of field work (without PhD),
but it's a lot more difficult. Plus, you will always be butting up against
credentialing norms during those jobs' recruiting processes. (Whether that's
equitable or not is another story.)

Just my $0.02.

~~~
archgoon
> In STEM, if you don't get a financial offer along with your acceptance
> letter, then you've actually been politely rejected.

This is important. I thought at the time that I accepted that it was due to
the massive budget cuts happening in California, and the UC's were undergoing
furloughs.

Oops.

~~~
daodedickinson
A prof I know at Berkeley won't let anyone in the Ph.D. program unless he can
secure funding for them. He's in a humanities major, though. Maybe in STEM
profs think they can land a job to pay it off.

------
Rhapso
I am actually going to get my PhD in the next few days.

Perhaps I am an outlier, but I really think it was the right thing for me. I
hit the end of my undergraduate degree and I felt like I had just started
learning, so I looked into graduate school and liked what I saw. I've spent
the last 4 years working on my PhD and I have learned a lot, I've made real
improvements to human knowledge, and I've gotten a job that would have been
impossible with a bachelors and 4 years of work experience.

But the biggest reason is simple and terrifying: because it is fun.

~~~
gozur88
>I've spent the last 4 years working on my PhD and I have learned a lot, I've
made real improvements to human knowledge, and I've gotten a job that would
have been impossible with a bachelors and 4 years of work experience.

The real problem with oversupply of PhDs is there are fields of study which
aren't remunerative outside academia. If you get a PhD in electrical
engineering, say, or something medical, you can get a job.

But if you field of study was sociology or literature and you can't find a job
in academia (and you probably can't), you're never going to be able to pay of
eight or ten year's worth of student loans.

~~~
tomw2005
A similar argument could be made for not studying any humanities subject. The
point is often not what the degree is in but the soft skills you gain. A good
undergrad degree is seen by many employers to be enough to get a job (outside
of specific technical fields).

If you have a PhD it is important to sell the skills it gave you that an
employer wants. A good list of which are found here:
[https://careercenter.umich.edu/article/phd-transferable-
skil...](https://careercenter.umich.edu/article/phd-transferable-skills)

------
teekert
4 years of focusing on one subject, going to conferences all over the world
and coupling them to vacations there, working with smart people of the same
age, working in a "students atmosphere" while getting paid, having the time to
really find out how things work, picking courses you like... Why are not more
people doing PhDs? (Or this is a Dutch perspective?) (Granted: I didn't have
that publish or perish attitude that landed some of my colleagues in places
like MIT, still I have a very nice job at the moment.)

Don't know how it is now but we used to work 38 hrs, the additional 2 were
given as free time on top of the standard 25 days/year giving you about 7
weeks off each year. You have no kids yet (in general) so you can travel a bit
(as said, often after a conference so the boss pays the ticket.) I had a
blast.

I did have some problems finding a job afterwards but this was end of 2009
when companies here basically stopped hiring for some time. But I spend 8
months applying while getting 74% of my last paid wages as a PhD student.
Still, that was not as fun as it sounds.

~~~
Bedon292
Yeah, that is definitely not the US perspective on it. Here you have to pay to
go to school, unless you are one of the lucky few who gets some sort of
research grant, or teaching position. In which case you get to live on
basically minimum wage, and travel is a extremely rare occurrence. You have
now spent 10+ years getting yourself into debt, rather than making any money
beyond what it takes to survive, and your job prospects aren't greatly
increased. Its not that great a deal here.

~~~
teekert
Wow 10+ years. Here the University receives a sum of money when you get your
PhD, that motivates them quite a lot to get you to finish. Most people finish
within 4-5 years in my experience. Getting a PhD is like a job here, I didn't
know it actually cost money in the US, in that case I can certainly understand
people doubting the added value. What I got out was about the value of taking
control, my prof gave me quite some freedom. But here also sometimes PhD
students are used a measurement slaves by some micro-managing UD (assistant
Professor). And also here sometimes people quit but it is more because they
are lost without progress after 2 years or so.

In the US: Market forces seem to diminish the value of a PhD. In the
Netherlands: Market is ignored by subsidies from the government. No idea what
is better, let it die or keep the PhD system alive artificially. I don't know,
the whole system feels a bit archaic to me. I always tell people that IQ and
level of education are hardly related. I think it is difficult to fail a PhD
here at least it doesn't happen often, especially when you have a professor
that says exactly what you should do, and then you do it. I never met a dumb
PhD student though.

~~~
Bedon292
I should clarify, I meant its 10+ years total in school 4 for Bachelors, 2-3
for Masters, and 4+ for the PhD.

------
7402
A Ph.D. is a union card for doing research. If you want to be a university
professor, a principal investigator at a lab, a Chief Scientist or Chief
Scientific Officer at a major corporation, then you need that union card.

A Ph.D. program should not be for people who just like learning more stuff.
You can take classes, get a masters degree, or just study on your own, if
that's what you want. A Ph.D. is supposed to be a certification that you can
create an original work of new research, at a quality level that meets the
approval of other professional researchers. The research project is typically
substantial enough to require years of effort, and the support of others who
have already gone through the process.

~~~
collyw
Thats the theory. Plenty of PhD students I see just do what their supervisor
tells them and don't seem to be especially smart these days.

~~~
appleflaxen
7402 is saying it's necessary.

you are saying it's not sufficient.

you might both be right; they are different properties.

------
tomw2005
I appreciate the article is written from a US perspective but here is how it
works in STEM in the UK:

1\. Get a funded PhD offer for 3-4 years (The funding is tax free so
comparable to the average grad salary).

2\. Complete in 3-4 years (it is hard to get more than a 6 month extension,
technically they can take their money back if you do but this rarely happens
as the system wants you to quit early or succeed).

3\. Be more employable (I'm speaking from personal experience here. I didn't
go looking for jobs like I did after my undergrad, they came to me via
LinkedIn/Monster etc.)

As an avid reader of PhD comics I have always struggled to understand why the
US system is so different.

As a side note it is worth pointing out that it is foolish to assume that
doing a PhD inherently leads to a Professorship now. What it does do is give
you 3-4 years experience (which employers like) and a vast range of research
and communication skills (which employers love).

~~~
gambiting
I do agree with this comment. I work as a c++ programmer and my friends who
stayed at uni to do their PhDs are bringing more money home each month than I
do, mostly because it's tax free and they get paid a lot of money to do
marking and demonstrating on top of their PhD stipend. And yes, you have to
finish in 4 years, extensions are uncommon.

~~~
toyg
On the other hand though, if they cannot get on track for a role in academia,
once they get a job in industry they'll likely make less than you because of
lack of practical experience. In such an ageist marketplace as programming in
particular, being older and inexperienced is really unattractive.

------
ThePhysicist
What the article doesn't mention at all is that many people pursue a PhD not
for financial reasons but because it (often) provides an opportunity to work
on very interesting problems with very smart people, something which is just
not possible in most industry jobs. And I don't mean this in a derogatory way,
it's just that (non-applied) Academic research is something that is
fundamentally different from company research/work because it is (usually) not
money-driven and has a very long-term focus.

Not everything in life is about the money, otherwise all people would try to
become investment bankers.

~~~
morgante
While some people certainly are motivated by interest in doing pure research,
I don't think that's the dominant factor.

From my anecdotal experience, far more are turning to PhDs simply as a way to
avoid the brutal job market. They're choosing it for financial reasons, even
though their reasons are backed by faulty information.

------
lazzlazzlazz
I am not aware of a way to get into a "scientist" level position doing biology
research, in industry, without a PhD. This alone would answer the question
"Why do so many people continue to pursue doctorates?"

If somebody has evidence to the contrary, please fill me in.

~~~
timroy
I've spent the last couple of weeks intensively researching paths into the
life sciences without a PhD (I'm deciding whether to go get one).

I haven't found a way in either. If you start your own company somewhere in
the field, or otherwise support yourself, you can rock and roll as an indie
researcher. Otherwise, a Ph.D. seems necessary.

I wonder if this will change over the next decade, as synthetic biology
continues to expand rapidly.

~~~
timr
There is no non-PhD pathway into biomed research that leads to career
advancement beyond the drone level [1]. If you do get a PhD, there are few
jobs, relative to the number of graduates. All in all, I'd advise against it,
unless you have a very specific love of the field, and can handle a modest,
academic lifestyle in exchange for working very hard at what you do. And for
that, the drone-level jobs are perfect for testing the waters: you should get
a job in industry first, and if you decide that you love it, get a PhD.

Also, beware the "$TOPIC is expanding rapidly" trap: synthetic biology is
merely the buzzword of the moment. When I started, it was computational
biology. Later, genomics. The number of opportunities created by these booms
has never kept up with the hype waves that preceded them.

[1] There is, however, a pathway for "business" people who enter biomed. But
I'm assuming you're not interested in this, and in any case, getting a PhD
won't help you with it.

~~~
timroy
Thanks for the advice, that all sounds right to me. I particularly like the
point about the $TOPIC of the moment.

The roll-your-own-company lab approach sounds a little better, overall. One
tricky thing is that I'd have a lot more credibility starting a biotech
company with a Ph.D. Right now I'm considering a Ph.D. to get the training and
credibility (union card, as someone else said). Still not a slam dunk, though
- Transcriptic's founder just has a bachelor's.

------
jvvw
I did a PhD because I really loved my subject (mathematics). I never envisaged
it being a path to riches and it didn't bother me unduly that my friends who
went into jobs on graduation were earning much more than me. It really didn't
occur to me to do anything other than do a PhD - I certainly wasn't doing it
to postpone making a decision. I actually felt relatively wealthy because my
grant I got as a postgrad was far more than the money I had as an
undergraduate.

The issue in my case is that I discovered that I didn't actually enjoy doing
research for a number of reasons and having a PhD in a non-vocational subject
generally makes you less employable rather than more - or at least changes the
opportunities on offer. It is also difficult to extract yourself gracefully
from a PhD program before the end - I ploughed on to submit my thesis and get
my doctorate even though I'd realise a long time before that I didn't intend
to pursue a research career. I was also quite naive about the realities of
pursing an academic career (despite having a parent who is an academic), but
given that research wasn't really for me, that probably wasn't too important
in the grand scheme of things.

------
tzs
Suppose you have an intellectual interest in some STEM field, and want to
learn enough to be able to follow the leading edge of research in that field,
and perhaps even advance that yourself. Let's assume you've obtained a
bachelor's degree in that field.

Let's consider some options now available to you.

1\. You get a job in programming or IT, perhaps at a startup, and perhaps make
a ton of money. You pursue your STEM field interest in your spare time.

2\. You find a job that is actually in your STEM field but that only requires
a bachelor's degree. As with option #1 you pursue you advanced interests in
your spare time. You probably don't make as much money compared to #1, but you
are more likely to do work actually related to your STEM interest.

3\. You spend, say, 7 years getting your PhD.

Let's compare these at the end of 7 years. As far as how much you know about
your STEM field goes, option #3 wins by a long shot. With option #3 you've
spent 7 years where basically your full time task was to learn your field at
an advanced level, interrupted by the occasional undergraduate class you have
to teach.

With option #1 or #2, you have something else occupying much of your time. You
are going to have progressed in your STEM field nowhere near as far as you
would have under option #3. For most people they will _never_ be able to get
under #1 or #2 to the point where they would have been at the end of #3...work
just doesn't leave enough time. When you are trying to understand the most
advanced things in a STEM field you need to be able to devote reasonably long
periods of sustained concentration and study.

Financially, those who choose option #1 or #2 are generally better off after 7
years than those who choose #3.

A good PhD program in a STEM field should be fully funded. It will cover your
tuition, and give you a stipend and/or teaching assignments that will cover
the expenses if a modest scholarly lifestyle.

So the question you have to ask yourself is this: "if someone will cover my
expenses so that I can spend 7 years devoted to my STEM interest, getting to a
level of knowledge in that field that I probably will _never_ be able to get
any other way, is it worth starting the 'make a lot of money/start a
family/settle down' phase of my life 7 years later than I could otherwise
start it?"

The answer is yes for many people.

------
prions
It's no secret that the life sciences field is over saturated, competitive,
and vastly underpaid with a high barrier for entry. Industry demand is low on
both bachelors and doctorate level positions.

A bachelors really doesn't get you anything as a sciences student. Besides
QA/Tech positions, there aren't many options to cut a viable path within the
field. Most companies demand a minimum Masters with a preference for PhD's for
most Scientist level positions. Having upward career mobility is very tough
without a higher degree.

Spurned on by a lack of better options, most students pursue grad school in
hopes of landing a tenure track position or hope their research aligns with
relevant industry markets. Competition is insanely high though from the sheer
churn of graduate students who are essentially cheap labor for their
universities.

------
bbgm
I did my PhD in theoretical chemistry/biophysics in the late 90s. I was funded
throughout so didn't have to take on any debt (I was married for the last 3
years). I learnt a lot during those years including how to really think about
a problem, design experiments, and collaborate with the bench scientists on
the team. I also fell in love with protein structure, got to understand
spectroscopy, the electronic structure of vision, and got to run stuff on some
of the biggest supercomputers in the US. PhDs require (IMO) a love of your
field, lots of discipline, and tons of patience. I never wanted to be an
academic and worked in the scientific industry for 8 years at startups and
BigCos (5 of them in product management). The last 8 years I've done something
else (although a lot of my interest came from my HPC experience) but have
never lost touch with my roots.

Regrets? None. Every experience has been completely worth it.

Many of my friends have done PhDs and postdocs. Some are academics, some lead
large research teams, others R&D teams at biotech startups, and some have
moved on to different fields like me. Almost none regret doing what they do or
the path they've chosen. Sure there is a lot to change with the system and too
many PhDs in some fields, but a doctorate was a rewarding experience for me
and for a good chunk of those I know who have one.

------
sweezyjeezy
I would never have forgiven myself if I hadn't done a doctorate degree. It
turned out that I wasn't a star, I didn't produce the research that would put
me on to a tenure-track position with ease. But I don't think there was any
way I would have found my limitations without doing it, without seeing how
much smarter some people were - I would always have been left wondering what
could have been. Now, I have come to terms with it, and moved on.

~~~
glial
I'm in my 6th year of a (hopefully soon-to-be-completed) doctorate, and my
experience has been very similar. I started the degree because I wanted to
learn more about a particular field and develop the related technical skills.
I couldn't think of a job where I could get the same benefits. I've learned a
ton, but have also seen that while I have certain strengths, there are others
who are smarter, more motivated, and frankly have different priorities than I
do. Like you, I'm now coming to terms with it, but I have a better idea of
what strengths I _do_ have and am working towards putting them to good use.

~~~
sbardle
Motivation is the big factor. Most PhDs are smart enough to pursue a career in
higher ed, but it takes a PhD to evaluate your level of motivation / love of
the subject. Intrinsic motivation is becoming even more important given the
incentives for entering the field are diminishing (job insecurity, more senior
management, publish or perish).

------
f_allwein
One point that has not been made here yet: Because you enjoy doing research
and teaching more than you would working in a 9-5 office job!

I'm approaching the end of a 4 year PhD and so far do not miss the world of
work too much. But ask me again in a year...

------
URSpider94
What this leaves out is that not all Ph.D. programs are equal. If you are good
enough in your field to get accepted into one of the Top 10 graduate programs,
you're going to have a great chance of getting a high-quality job when you
graduate, assuming you do well. If not, then you're chopped liver.

Those top 10 programs can probably fulfill most of the faculty openings in any
given field, nationwide, with enough graduates left over to fill all of the
needs of private industry and government labs as well. There is just no reason
for recruiters to look further down-list.

I have friends who have taken faculty positions at PhD granting programs
ranked 20th or so in the country. They have reported back that their grad
students are, um, underwhelming, and they end up doing a lot of their own
research hands-on.

------
bonniemuffin
I'm currently quite happy in an industry job in which my PhD is an asset, but
I'd still advise others against pursuing a PhD. I could've found a career path
that would be just as fulfilling without a PhD, and I could've gotten there
faster if I hadn't spent 10 years on a PhD+postdoc.

My standard advice to people currently in grad school is to drop out with a
masters.

------
stegosaurus
The article seemingly is very focused on employment. It's taken as axiomatic
that people must do whatever they do because it leads them into an employer's
arms, at some point.

What about whether a PhD helps people with romantic relationships, sense of
belonging in the community, happiness, social ranking, whatever other goals
they might have in their lives?

In light of that I think the topic should be changed on HN - I expected a much
more balanced analysis. The current headline on the site itself is "The Ever-
Tightening Job Market for Ph.D.s".

------
gr33nman
For many it is a calling - a deeply felt desire to explore and seek answers to
questions that are currently beyond human understanding. There are few careers
outside of academia that enable the focused pursuit of knowledge. Only the
most advanced societies in history have supported such endeavors, and public
universities were a democratic experiment in extending this support beyond the
wealthy elite.

Sadly, it seems that the United States has lost the will and vision to provide
this opportunity for its citizens. Now we only talk of job training and ROI.
The financial burden has been shifted from the society to the individual, and
the true promise of higher education is but a fading memory.

------
allisthemoist
I'm actually at the point of considering graduate school to help my chances of
establishing a life science based start-up in the future.

Is getting a graduate level degree (at least a Masters) a necessity to be the
head of such a company? From what I've seen, most other companies in the space
seem to be headed by people with either a PhD or MBA.

~~~
jtfairbank
I dropped out of college to found a med-tech company that went on to be funded
by YC. Every other company in my space is founded by a doctor. I haven't
noticed a difference in how we are treated yet. If you're good, you're good,
and you can always hire the PhDs later on.

~~~
timr
To be fair, you folks aren't doing research -- you're doing residency program
scheduling. And domain expertise is more important for your product than any
sort of theoretical knowledge of science or medicine.

To found a company doing scientific research, it helps a great deal not just
to have a PhD, but to to be an established researcher in the field you're
commercializing. Most scientific startups founded by outsiders
are...transparently bad.

~~~
jtfairbank
Agreed. It really depends on what you are going for. You can learn domain
knowledge on the fly (a lot of ours is how the organization functions), but
you can't gain a deep understanding of the science side like that.

------
henrik_w
My experience: M.Sc. in Computer Science, worked for 5 years in industry, went
back to do a Ph.D. but quit after 1 year.

I liked industry much better than doing a Ph.D., even though I loved all the
subjects I studied at university.

More details here: [https://henrikwarne.com/2016/03/07/ph-d-or-professional-
prog...](https://henrikwarne.com/2016/03/07/ph-d-or-professional-programmer/)

~~~
pc86
I'm sorry but this is the second comment in this thread that is trying to push
people to the author's personal blog. I don't think the point of commenting on
HN should be to drive traffic.

~~~
thedufer
You picked an interesting one to comment on - henrik_w's comments contain,
based on a quick scan, a bit more than one link to that blog per comment. That
no longer seems like commenting, so much as spamming.

~~~
pc86
Wow I didn't even notice that when I commented. That's like a Michael O.
Church level of "hey everybody look what I wrote!"

------
morgante
I've just had this debate with several friends (trying to convince them not to
go for PhDs), and overwhelmingly their goal is simply to avoid the job market.

Totally anecdotally, it remains very hard to get an entry-level job unless you
have some hard skills. A PhD offers the promise of avoiding the grueling
process of applying for jobs and they often (incorrectly) think that it will
make them much more employable.

~~~
ipunchghosts
Apply for jobs is way easier than candidacy and comps, not to mention a
dissertation.

I stopped after my masters, bought a house, and had 2 phd candidate friends
move in with me (we live in a city with a university). They tried to tell me
that grad school was harder than the real world. I argued that its easier
citing my experience in grad school and now the real world. I put in a solid
40 hours a week. In grad school, I was at the office roughly 50-60 but it was
largely unproductive. I find that graduate labs encourage bad habits like
staying up too late to fix a problem that could be easily fixed in the morning
after a good night sleep.

To prove to my friends that grad school was easier than the real world, I
offered to drive them to university everyday and pick them up on my way home.
I noticed that neither of them worked while at home. After the first week of a
straight 40 hours, they were exhausted. After a month of this, they found
another ride to school because they said working a straight 8 hour everyday
was too much!

~~~
morgante
> Apply for jobs is way easier than candidacy and comps, not to mention a
> dissertation.

They're different skills.

I certainly would find getting into a PhD problem much harder than getting a
job. But I've spent most of my undergraduate career working and networking—and
my GPA/research reflects that.

On the other hand, many of my friends never realized that the real world isn't
a series of hoops. They've done great academically (3.9+ GPA, serious research
with professors) but neglected to develop any real hard skills or to learn
about employability. So the job market is incredibly intimidating to them,
while a PhD looks like another series of hoops, which is comforting.

> I argued that its easier citing my experience in grad school and now the
> real world.

I have no idea what grad school is like, but I do think that the "real world"
is a lot easier than undergrad. With jobs, you have a defined amount of work
to do each day and have loads of free time to do whatever you want with.
Whereas academics have a limitless supply of potential things to do, without
defined hours. But maybe that's just because I've always loved work a lot more
than school.

------
woodandsteel
Two thoughts on why people go for doctorates even though they are unlikely to
get a job that requires it.

One is that there is a real conflict of interest for their professors. They
are supposed to be advising their students in their best interests, but they
need to keep a big surplus of graduate students to keep their graduate
programs going, and often also as research assistants.

The other is that American elementary and secondary education is designed to
funnel people into higher education, and so that is what students learn how do
do, rather than getting a job in the real world. Contrast this with Germany,
where there is a very solid track for learning useful skilled manual trades
(and that is a key reason German manufacturing continues to be very healthy in
the face of Asian competition)

~~~
sbardle
Germany has good academic (selective) schools and good technical schools. We
used to have something similar in the UK. I have a PhD and was good
academically. I recently bumped into an old school friend, who was not
academic in the slightest and is now a tradesman earning great money. If I had
kids, I wouldn't mind one bit if they decided to pass on higher education and
learn a trade instead. I call it, "Revenge on the snobs."

------
geebee
There is a very good essay titled "Graduate School in the Humanities - Just
Don't Go" that gives a really excellent description of the mindset that exists
when young people go to graduate school. This described me well when I was
floating around in my early to mid 20s. I enrolled in a doctoral program in
industrial engineering and (ended up leaving with a masters) rather than
humanities, but still, I see a lot of myself in what this article describes.

[http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the-
Huma/448...](http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the-Huma/44846/)

All this is a bit less applicable to some fields. I've heard that employment
is good PhDs for CS and some other engineering fields - but then again, so is
employment with an MS or BS. Economics may be a good field for a PhD.

One other factor is that getting a graduate degree from a US based university
can be a path to immigrate to the US. There really aren't many options for
people who don't have family reunification as an option, so going to grad
school in a STEM field in particular may have value that isn't captured in pay
relative to fields that don't provide this path to the same extent.

The article mentions that enrollment in PhD programs hasn't declined like it
has for law schools and historically hasn't been a path to immigration. One
way to measure this would be to see if there has been a substantial decline in
enrollment in PhD programs from people who already have the right to live in
and work in the US.

------
patmcguire
Don't forget immigration. It's a lot easier to get a student visa than a
working one, and a lot easier to get a working one with higher degrees.

~~~
hocuspocus
Especially given the current H1B situation. It looks like almost anyone with a
PhD and a good immigration lawyer can get an O1, even if they're being hired
as an entry-level developer or another position that clearly doesn't require
extraordinary skills.

------
sbardle
Most PhDs pursue their subject because they are very interested in it. That
interest may stay the same, it may (in most cases) die down / be satisfied, or
it may intensify. You will always be wondering whether academic was for you or
not unless you do a PhD.

------
Gatsky
This is a good question to ask. Prospective and current PhD students need to
understand the pros and cons, and the incentives driving their recruitment.
But in terms of defining the problem, it all depends on your perspective... As
a society, we are severely lacking in people doing deep dedicated study in
important areas. Understanding biology at a level that allows us to alleviate
much of human suffering is still a long way away, for example. So perhaps the
question is 'Why do we pauperize people interested in doing serious science
and then make them feel bad about it?'

------
ipunchghosts
I've wondered this for years. I got a nice job at a University Research Lab. I
have lots of creative freedom, can write grants, and am well funded. Most of
my colleages are Phds yet most of our customers assume I do. I did an honors
undergrad with thesis and a masters. I chose a good adviser and after those
experiences, I feel I can easily keep up with other phds here but without
having to go through the stress of comps, etc.

------
Joof
Status, life experience and the opportunity to do interesting jobs that may
require additional study.

Why do people keep getting degrees in journalism when there are no jobs?

------
johanneskanybal
Everything in this article is purely from an american point of view. It's not
exactly news worthy that it's a bad system. Also forgotten in there is the
journey part of it instead only focusing on it like it was an illogical move
in some non-existent game to maximize ones total life earnings. Apart from
those pretty big gripes it was an interesting read, just a bit one-
dimensional.

------
tychonoff
I did a PhD in pure mathematics decades ago, simply because it was so
interesting. None of it seemed practical at the time (eg. category theory,
topology, Horn logic) but that changed when computing began to embrace these
ideas. In fact, one of my profs suggested that I study whatever I want until I
reach 30, when the concrete begins to settle. That was really good advice for
me.

------
puranjay
Serious question: my fiancee is thinking of pursuing a PhD in the humanities
field. She has a BA, MA and MPhil, and the natural next step is to get a PhD

She has consistently been among the top 5% of every academic institution she
has been in. Her GRE is 333, and she has several research papers under her
belt.

Would it make sense for her to get a PhD? Or is the job market too terrible in
the humanities?

~~~
dozzie
And what would she do with this new title? This should be the main thing that
determines whether it's worth it.

~~~
skj
People focus on the title and what it can buy you, but forget the skill set
acquired and what _that_ can buy you.

I have a PhD, but it didn't really help me get my job. What it did do is
change me from a worker drone into an independent thinker and designer who can
write design docs blindingly fast (compared to my highly esteemed, but slower
writing, peers).

Not saying that everyone without a PhD is a worker drone, just that I was.

~~~
nbclapton
I've known PhDs who wrote very high level design docs full of hand-waved
features. When they implemented anything, half of the features were
segfaulting and the code base was a mess.

None of this changed their self confidence in the slightest. Curiously, people
pushing for formal methods, unit tests and sane design practices were all non-
PhDs.

------
guelo
The 40% with employment commitments doesn't seem that bad actually. It's
probably higher than the percentage for B.S. graduates.

------
atemerev
3 most important motivations are:

1) Love for science (it is hard to do full-time funded research without a PhD)

2) Prestige

3) Desire to work for the government (some high-profile public service
positions make it easier to get in with a PhD).

Nearly nobody is doing a PhD for "employability" (except specific target
positions from #3) or financial reward.

------
jheriko
i'm a drop out so i may be biased, but my experience of software developers
with doctorates is that they are very consistently not as good as self taught
juniors in the workplace.

this makes sense.. a doctorate is a research effort with a very different kind
of end goal to the typical workplace environment. its an opportunity to
explore the field and do work that most employers will never let you - but
more importantly the skill set required is, imo, highly orthogonal to the
skills require for day-to-day 'boring' work.

why do people expect doctorates to result in employment outside of academia?
they are poorly suited to this by design... and afaik its completely
intentional because of the aforementioned difference in skill requirements.

~~~
argonaut
There's another selection bias at play: the really good PhD's in CS who didn't
go to academia and aren't doing research at a research lab, are making
millions at Google/Facebook/quant finance, and not <foo corp>.

~~~
jheriko
its funny how all of the best programmers i know have quite a lot of disdain
for the idea that Google or Facebook are good at engineering... their public
facing code is good evidence of it too. HHVM is full of rank amatuer
crappiness, as well as some fairly cool stuff... but mostly crappiness and
WebRTC is an absolute nightmare to use in practice compared to most rookie
efforts in the same area (and its not because of what it does, its because
Google have lots of internal stuff to work around the shittiness that isn't
public afaik).

i've met plenty of very shitty googlers and facebookers, as well as some truly
excellent ones. but i suspect you will find much better guys in games, vfx,
military and finance (which at least backs up some of your point). in my
experience there is a much lower tolerance for crappiness in those fields by
necessity. the performance and quality bar they have to meet is orders of
magnitude higher in a lot of cases...

------
seaghost
Everything explained here.
[https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_cre...](https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity)

------
squozzer
I think the answer is very simple - a doctorate still packs a lot of prestige.
It says that one is Smart, especially nowadays when more people than ever hold
a bachelor's.

------
mchaver
Another point is that advanced degree in the right subject make acquiring a
work visa easier in many countries, though US work visas are challenging to
get regardless.

------
soufron
Well, I was paid for the first five years of my PhD... and then I dropped off
:)

------
kwhitefoot
Because a lot of employers of researchers demand it.

------
known
1\. Decent Scholarship

2\. Better long term prospects

------
skywhopper
This article is clearly written by someone without much perspective into the
actual people getting these degrees, the programs that offer them, or the
process by which they are granted. But why let that stop you from writing an
article based on some numbers you saw?

First of all, yes, the market for academic jobs in general is pretty bad,
despite increasing demand for college education, because of relentless
government slashing of public higher education funding over the past 20 years.
The comparison to what has happened recently with law schools is completely
senseless, though. Law school was seen by many to be a certain path to an
extremely high-paying job, and was pursued by the most ambitious, most money-
driven individuals. And for a long time, the reward really was there. That all
changed suddenly, and the jobs dried up, so when most of the reason applicants
choose a law career goes away, of course applications will drop.

But many academic fields have _always_ had poor job markets, few tenure-track
positions, and cruddy pay. It may be getting marginally worse every year, but
it's not like there's a sudden sea change in what you can expect if you go get
a degree in English. And in any case, the sort of person who pursues a PhD is
almost never motivated by a desire for money, or a "great career". The people
who are so motivated are the ones who look at tables of graduate school ROI
and used to choose law. Your Art History PhD student probably has never seen
such a chart, wouldn't care if they did, and doesn't think in terms of ROI.

The other problem with the law school comparison is just raw numbers. Law
schools likely put out an order of magnitude more JDs each year than all
typical PhD fields combined. The PhD pipeline is far more stable.

The author questions why schools are pushing more people through graduate
programs when demand is decreasing, but that's easy to answer. First of all,
at the micro level, each individual department and PhD program has an internal
incentive to continue the work they've been doing for years. This is their
job, after all, and there are customers.

The universities that run these programs also have every incentive for them to
continue. 1) Accreditation boards, US News and World Report rankings, and
research funding all give you bonus points for having a PhD program. 2)
Graduate tuition is higher than undergraduate tuition. 3) PhD students are an
even cheaper source of labor with even fewer rules about mistreating them than
adjunct faculty! This one is huge. There are some schools where most of your
classes will be taught by PhD students, not by actual professors.

The author also doesn't seem to have ever talked to anyone who's gotten a PhD.
Those median time-to-completion numbers are meaningless. Yes, some fields
(mostly hard science) have their PhD candidates doing research for their
dissertation for years on end, but in most fields, you do a couple of years of
PhD coursework and then you work on your dissertation until you finish. Many
programs will pay you a tiny bit to stick around if you will teach classes, at
least for a couple more years, but in general the onus to complete this
massive project is on the individual student. And given that they probably
have families by this point in their life and that they're most likely working
some unrelated or semi-related job in the meantime to pay the bills, yeah,
sometimes it takes years and years to complete the dissertation.

Go to any academic-related administrative department at a large state
university and you will find it filled with people who have full time jobs
supporting the university, but are also slowly working through their PhD in
Education or something similar. They get a slight bump in pay and respect when
they complete it, but for the most part they are there working for the
university and working on their PhD because they love their field, and they're
passionate about helping students learn.

Of course, the stats given also leave out the fields in which there is plenty
of demand for PhD-holding professors. If you want a six figure starting salary
and schools falling over themselves to hire you, go get a PhD in Accounting.

Finally, there's not enough context in the article on the stats showing "no
job commitment" for PhD students. It apparently means "tenure track
professorship", but I think you'll find that most of the people in those
fields know exactly what they're getting into, end up in totally acceptable
jobs, and are pleased about doing the work to get their PhD.

