
Why are there so many science PhDs? - denzil_correa
http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2014/01/07/why-are-there-so-many-science-phds/
======
_delirium
Could it be that many people are actually interested in science?

There is nearly continuous hand-wringing that kids are no longer interested in
science, yet many go into fields like physics, astronomy, and biology despite
knowing the job prospects are better elsewhere (finance, programming,
petroleum engineering, etc.). And then many continue on for a PhD despite it
not making financial sense to do so. One possibility is that they are either
highly misinformed or just irrational. But one could be that they actually
want to advance physics, astronomy, biology, or whatever their chosen field
is, and they see it as a necessary prerequisite (finding a career _in physics_
with a physics BSc is difficult).

If so, then we have one of two problems (or perhaps a mixture):

1\. _Too many_ kids are interested in science. We should stop trying to
encourage interest in science as a career, and rather encourage kids to
develop interests elsewhere, to reduce the glut. No more kids-oriented physics
or astronomy programs on public TV!

2\. The existing scientific career pathways are not sufficient to provide
productive scientific careers to enough of the people interested in pursuing a
scientific career. We should figure out what to do about that, whether it
involves debugging/debottlenecking some of the pathways, increasing funding,
producing new funding models (perhaps research funding not tied to
universities), etc.

~~~
tensor
This was certainly my own motivation. Contributing something to our collective
knowledge was the goal. The value of that in my eyes was worth the time.

On a slightly different topic, why is HN so obsessed with PhDs? PhDs represent
a very small fraction of the population, and they are not particularly vocal
either. Yet you see article after article here about PhDs, the majority of the
comments being negative or hostile.

~~~
cossatot
I think it's the status; there are a fair amount of people on HN who have PhDs
(I have no idea what the actual fraction is; ~5-10%?) and a lot more equally
smart people who don't have one. And some (surely small) fraction of those
people either have their own insecurities, or feel badgered by PhDs (like
michaelochurch below, who I am glad explained his negativity).

But it saddens me a bit, because getting a PhD really can be a wonderful and
valuable thing.

~~~
mjn
HN's local PhD-holders are interesting examples of how having a PhD doesn't
really mean you have to do any specific thing (or pursue an academic career).
When I was doing a little research on the most prolific HN posters [1], I
found 3 of the top 20 have a PhD, and none are in academia: Paul Graham runs
YCombinator, John Graham-Cumming is a programmer and author, and Colin Wright
works in maritime technology (while also giving mathematics talks to students
on the side). Another only-slightly-less-prolific poster is Colin Percival,
who runs a one-man technology business (Tarsnap).

[1]
[http://www.kmjn.org/notes/hacker_news_posters.html](http://www.kmjn.org/notes/hacker_news_posters.html)

------
ebiester
It's simple: the immigration system rewards advanced degrees.

While Americans often pursue Ph.Ds because of a desire to pursue academia or
pure research, most people coming to the US for educations are looking for a
way to stay in the US, and there are H1-B slots specifically for those with
advanced degrees from US universities.

Further, the life of a graduate student on stipend is remarkably similar in
lifestyle comforts to working in their native countries, and they will be
rewarded with better jobs in their native countries even if they do not stay
in the US.

That is what fuels the graduate student STEM system.

~~~
HarryHirsch
{{citation needed}}

What if people came to the US simply to get an education? Let's face it, the
education at good American universities is very, very good, and anyone with a
PhD degree from Harvard, Berkeley or UIUC has a good shot at getting a decent
position back home.

For H1-B purposes, a US Masters degree is sufficient, and there are more than
plenty such programs to go around. (Why are there so many taught masters? It's
because they are cheap for the university to offer, and lesser places are in
urgent need of income from tuition.) No need to pain oneself with five years
of serious PhD work when a year or two of taught masters will do the job.

On the contrary, the road to a green card is complicated, it really shouldn't
be done through H1-B because then you are at the mercy of the employer, and
with a PhD from somewhere decent it's best done though E1/E2 with national
interest waiver, no H1-B needed. (If you know what I'm talking about it's
because you are a lawyer or applied for a Green Card. May God have mercy on
your soul.)

It's more likely that Americans don't shoot for PhD in the sciences because
it's hard work that isn't well rewarded at the end. The market is speaking.

~~~
tostitos1979
I thought most PhDs go the route of E1 outstanding researcher, which requires
a job. Is E1-NIW common?

~~~
HarryHirsch
E1 - Persons with extraordinary ability doesn't require a job offer, neither
does E2-NIW. Yes, E2-NIW is rather common because it's a catch-all category
that does not require sponsorship.

------
misnome
Are there many people doing a science PhD for the job prospects? I mean, my
understanding is that in America it involves an extra couple of years of
specialization on top of the (four?) years average of the PhD itself. It's not
like someone with no background in science is going into them "because market
forces" (why does everything have to be done in terms of what the market
demands?).

Most of the people I have met doing my PhD is doing it because they love their
field and want to gain a deeper understanding, or work in the field.

~~~
michaelochurch
Something I've found as a quant and data scientist without a PhD is that PhD
Bigotry is common. Really fucking common. Plenty of companies will give you
second-rate projects just because you don't have a PhD.

That said, it would _never_ make sense for me to get a PhD for job-related
reasons: the opportunity cost is too high. (In fact, it's too high even
considering that I have a lot of intellectual reasons why, if I had more time,
I'd do one.) Economically, I'm better off to deal with the annoyance of PhD
bigotry (and leave jobs if it is an issue) than go into a program that has
almost (and possibly over) $1 million in opportunity costs and that I'll exit
(if I'm lucky) at the unfundable age of 35.

I know why PhD bigotry exists; people conceive that the alternative is to
admit that 4-6 years of time were wasted, so they have to build up this
bullshit belief that without a PhD, you're just not research-grade. But I find
that ridiculous. 4-6 years learning things you're passionate about and can use
is _never_ wasted; but don't bring me down (by insisting that everyone who
hasn't made such an investment is somehow inferior) just because you're
insecure about your choices. (Who isn't?)

~~~
mjn
I agree there's a reasonable amount of that, but in technology research
specifically, my impression has been that publications trump degrees. If two
people without any recent impressive publications are being compared, then the
person with a PhD gets to pull that card. But if you're looking at graphics
researchers, say, if and how recently you've published at SIGGRAPH is often a
bigger factor than what degrees you have, when it comes to whether other
graphics researchers consider you a legit graphics researcher. Industry guy
with a BSc who publishes there regularly is seen as more of a real graphics
researcher than PhD-holder who used to work in the field but last published
there in 1995 (unless what they published in 1995 was truly revolutionary,
maybe).

~~~
nostrademons
I've found that demonstrated competency & achievements count for more than
both publications and degrees. When I was working on Google Authorship, I was
the only one on the team without an advanced degree, and only two others
lacked a Ph.D. I never once felt like I was looked down upon - actually, it
seemed like I was quite well-respected, and for a year after I left the team
they continued to ask my manager to keep me sitting in the same office for
occasional consulting. Why? Because I had written much of the code that got
the project off the ground, I understood how everything fit together, and I
was very willing to consider and advocate for ideas of how it could all be
improved.

------
pcrh
There is plenty of demand for PhD students and fresh postdocs. They help the
Prof. with her teaching load, grant writing, etc. They are dedicated, work
long hours and cost little.

There is however, much lower demand for PhDs who would wish to run their own
research program, after all the PI can take the same ideas and work and do it
under guise of their own research program without giving too much credit to
the grad student or postdoc.

The result, at least in biomedicine, is an increase in the size of research
groups, and very protracted postdoctoral periods.

------
VLM
I agree with michaelochurch's argument and extend it to a escalation of
commitment / sunk cost fallacy effect.

No jobs for BS grads other than waitress? Well, I'm not going to quit physics
after 4 long years and go into being a waiter... I know, go for a MS! Whoops
no jobs for MS grads other than barista? No problemo, go for a PHD!

I would also propose the "professional sport" model now applies in academia.
1000 students will get a BS, 100 will get the MS, 10 will get a PHD, 1 will
get an actual PHD level industrial job or tenure track professorship. The
other 999 can pay off their student loans working at Starbucks. There is less
difference between a physics major and a phy ed major than ever before.

------
rdtsc
As pcrh hinted there is a bit of an echo chamber effect in academia. I noticed
it as well. Many professors will advocate and encourage students because they
themselves chose that path. Some just see it as a good career, some want
postdocs and TA students to help with grading and TAs.

One professor I had I heard telling the student, you can have a stable
teaching job, good vacations, good life. It wasn't about contributing to
science, about advancing research, being interested in the subject it was
about trying to coast and mooch of the public university system.

~~~
VLM
denigration of "... stable ... job, good vacations, good life... " = Stockholm
syndrome victim.

Let me make a wild guess, that whoever convinced you those are bad things to
be avoided, personally financially benefits from your lack of a stable job,
lack of vacation and lack of a good lifestyle?

I wanted to go into physics when I was about 17... I couldn't figure out why
ruining my theoretical future families life by grinding poverty would
contribute to science, so bye bye physics. I can read a book if I want to.

~~~
rdtsc
> Let me make a wild guess, that whoever convinced you those are bad things to
> be avoided, personally financially benefits from your lack of a stable job,
> lack of vacation and lack of a good lifestyle?

It wasn't me, it was someone else that was being convinced. I was encouraged
but not as directly. The idea is that at least public universities, should
probably be spending resources grooming students who intent on advancing
particular specialties or fields not just mooch off of tenure system.

And I guess I would have expected them to make that a bit more veiled and not
as direct. That is why perhaps tenure is harder to acquire and what separates
average and below average schools from top tier ones (this wasn't a top one,
just an average state college).

~~~
VLM
The Stockholm Syndrome thing is related to the language choice. Being able to
take a vacation, or having a good lifestyle, does not equal "mooching".

------
TeeWEE
It do think the article and the articles Daniel is referring to have a point,
there is indeed an industry - PhD gap. But this gap is not more than logical;
It has todo with the "raison d'être" of a PhD:

PhD are tracks of several years to advance human knowledge by doing science.
It is often a low payed 'job', done by people who are passionate about the
thing they are studying. If you just want to get a good paying job, doing a
PhD is probably not advisable, though Universities may inform students
otherwise (like Daniel is mentioning).

I myself am working in industry and am well payed, however I'm considering
pursuing a PhD related to autonomous driving.. Why? Because I'm passionate
about it. Because i'd rather spend time advancing the human race than to fix a
race condition in our backend servers (also fun ;-)

Anyway, i think this partially explains why a lot of people or doing PhD. Its
because of the human endless interest in science. Its a good thing. In the end
the research these PhD students are doing will cause revolutions in our
industry.

In a few years people will be driving autonomous cars. And this is mostly due
to universities. Google is standing on the shoulders of giants.

Probably I'm viewing this with too much optimism, but I think thats a good
thing. At least i'm aware of it.

------
nickbauman
I have an undergraduate degree in an unrelated field (from software
engineering, which is what I do). I have never really wanted to go on because
the income opportunity loss was too great. But I once thought if I were
independently wealthy I would go back. I recently had a chance to do a
graduate-level coursework for my job. It was a real shock to remember that
"getting the right answer" was more important than learning anything or making
something. So if it's about learning something, I think there are better
things you can do than get a degree. Especially now that education has become
such a business and totally employment-oriented.

~~~
borisqd
Getting the right answer on known problems is a prerequisite to getting the
right answer on unknown ones. At least, if you can't get the right answer it's
very unlikely you can solve ones where the answer is unknown. Also, there's a
good chance you didn't really learn the material. Having taught courses at all
levels I would say it's relatively rare to assign problems that are truly
hard. Most just are testing your understanding of definitions and if you can't
get the right answer you probably didn't understand something.

Getting a PhD isn't just about "learning" but also how to create/discover new
knowledge. If all you want is to learn something get a second undergraduate
degree or read on your own.

------
brownbat
Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics data still indicate that PhDs have
higher lifetime earnings and lower unemployment than those with lower levels
of educational attainment. [1][2] (Those with professional degrees do somewhat
better, though it's unclear if it's statistically significant.)

Those who study the sciences tend to have higher lifetime earnings than
others. Here's indication of that at least at the Bachelor's level: [3][4] (I
can't find the PhD earnings breakdown , but I'd be surprised if this suddenly
inverted at upper levels.)

[1]
[http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/acs/infogr...](http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/acs/infographics/index.html)

[2]
[http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm](http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm)

[3]
[http://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/056/](http://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/056/)

[4]
[http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-10.pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-10.pdf)

Note that the BLS link (2) includes median earnings, indicating that this is
not just skewed by a handful of overachievers in the top couple percentile.
It's not as if the top two percent of PhDs are landing eight figure jobs and
every other PhD is unemployed.

There seems to be a shortage of jobs within academia, and it may be that those
with more investment in skills have more search costs to find the ideal fit
for their skills with appropriate compensation.

On the other hand, Jeff Sauro found that in the Usability field, PhDs never
catch up. [5]

[5] [http://www.measuringusability.com/usability-
phd.php](http://www.measuringusability.com/usability-phd.php)

So there's the possibility that some professions don't follow the trend, but
the results overall are fairly clear that a PhD is a good idea in general.
More rigorous analysis probably needs to be done profession by profession
though.

~~~
NhanH
Bachelor's degree holders encompass a much larger set of population, with a
lot more variance than the set of PhD holders. I'd think that if you can get a
set of "people without PhD that could have been capable of getting one" and
compare it with PhD holders, the difference would be far smaller, if any.

------
eykanal
One possible reason is that the PhD in some fields can be an "easy" way to get
a paying position after graduating. There are a lot of smart people graduating
from undergraduate programs, and there is a general paucity of good jobs for
these people. A PhD provides a few good things:

1) Credentials look good on paper

2) Work is generally perceived as interesting and worth doing (at least, until
they start doing it)

3) Some fields/programs offer stipends. In many cases, a small stipend doing
what you think will be interesting work is perceived as better than a larger
salary doing an uninteresting task.

------
loser777
As an undergrad, the main reason I would pursue a PhD would be to have some
kind of intellectual freedom after graduating. A lot of my CS peers and
friends would rather immediately jump to industry to make that magical
$100k/yr, but I see a PhD as a way of being able to pursue my interests much
more freely. If I have to be a slave/code monkey, I'd rather be a slave for
myself first. That's worth the difference in salary for me at this moment.

------
Blahah
For me at least:

1\. I want to improve the world

2\. Intellectual freedom matters to me

3\. Money doesn't matter to me

Market forces be damned.

~~~
dnautics
This is market action. Market != money. You're making a value choice between
different outcomes and exercising an unrestricted choice to pursue what you
want out of a marketplace of options.

You should also consider that nonprofit != "helping the world". There are lots
of non-profit efforts that don't wind up helping one bit, and just consuming
resources. (for that matter, this happens with for-profits, too).

And, having been through the mill, A PhD does not guarantee you intellectual
freedom. I'd say it might even be worse in some sectors of the academe.

~~~
Blahah
Agreed on all points. But market action != market forces. I was not persuaded
by a disparity between supply and demand in the market to do a PhD.

My PhD has a very direct route to helping the world, and I chose it because
after about a year of searching I considered it the most efficient way to use
my skills to do so. My next move might well be in the for-profit world; Ive
seen some very effective stuff happening there.

Similarly, the PhD in general doesn't guarantee intellectual freedom, but mine
does. This was a major factor in choosing my supervisor (there are ~20 in the
consortium I wanted to work in, and I rejected several).

------
7up
part of it is simply due to the inertia of already being in an academic
environment. students commit 4 years to do their undergraduate degrees.
instead of pursuing the unknown (ie. searching for a job, moving potentially,
meeting new people, becoming more independent, etc.) students stick with what
they already know in academia, albeit in a different, more serious form.

------
michaelochurch
The answer is that we're farther away from full employment than we think we
are in the US. We think we're off by some 5% rounding error we can attribute
to friction or economic cycles, but we're actually off by 20-25% (include:
discouraged workers, our gigantic prison population, et al). For most people,
extended schooling (for those whose parents can afford it) is a way to replace
the marginal, vulnerable years with something that doesn't involve the stigma
of being unemployed. For science PhD programs, there's even (meager) pay.

Why are there so many law students who don't give a shit about the law? MBA-
school students who just want to network and drink but don't care about
business fundamentals? For these same reason as there are those surplus,
academically unemployable PhDs. For most people, the alternative isn't "$800k
seed round". It's no job or non-college job or some other situation that makes
graduate school a better option.

Of course, this floods graduate programs with people who shouldn't be there,
often don't care to be there, and clog up the job market for everyone else
with that degree.

~~~
mrfusion
Very interesting perspective. Why do you think there's so much unemployment?

