
Science PhDs Have Very Low Jobless Rates - acconrad
http://web.hbr.org/email/archive/dailystat.php?date=021011
======
narkee
So P(jobless|PhD) = 0.017, whereas P(jobless) = 0.066

According to Baye's Theorem, the P(PhD|jobless) =
P(jobless|PhD)*P(PhD)/P(jobless)

Where according to [1], P(PhD) = 0.01 (for all PhDs) so assuming roughly half
are science, P(PhD) = 0.005, and we get

P(PhD|jobless) = 0.0013, or 0.13%, which means that roughly 1 out of every
1000 jobless people has a PhD.

[1][http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_...](http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP20&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-redoLog=false)

~~~
madcaptenor
But who cares about P(PhD|jobless)? P(jobless|PhD) is important; it's a
measure of how much job security a PhD leads to. But P(PhD|jobless) is only
important if you're a jobless PhD and you want to know what your chances of
finding someone else who's survived grad school in the unemployment line. I
wouldn't know how to interpret "1 out of every n jobless people has a PhD";
the first thing I'd ask is "what proportion of all people have a PhD", and
then essentially run things through a crude mental version of Bayes' theorem.

(I have a PhD. In probability.)

~~~
btilly
_P(jobless|PhD) is important; it's a measure of how much job security a PhD
leads to._

No, it is a measure of how much job security a PhD is correlated with. I
believe that the qualities that lead to one being able to complete a PhD are
positively correlated with being able to get and hold a job. Therefore you
need to restrict to just those people you think could get a PhD to figure out
how much the PhD helps or hurts you.

~~~
madcaptenor
I stand corrected. This is exactly what I'd tell my students if they had made
the mistake I made.

------
iuygtfrikuj
What proportion of those jobs are below minimum wage post-doc positions?

The unemployment rate for panhandlers is also very low, very few of them face
redundancy

~~~
yummyfajitas
_What proportion of those jobs are below minimum wage post-doc positions?_

Probably not very many. Typical postdoc pay is $40-60k/year depending on where
the job is located ($40k in Urbana-Champaigne, $60k NYC or Chicago).

That's about 2-4x lower than what the postdoc could get in the outside world,
but it's a far cry from minimum wage.

~~~
timr
_"Typical postdoc pay is $40-60k/year depending on where the job is located
($40k in Urbana-Champaigne, $60k NYC or Chicago)."_

I say thee "Ha!", sir. The offers I was getting for post-docs were
consistently on or below the low end of that range, even in San Francisco
(which ain't cheap).

Probably one of the biggest nudges I had away from academia was the
realization that as a post-doc, I'd have a lower standard of living than I did
as a graduate student. It didn't seem like a smart trend to follow.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Wow, I guess my experience (in applied math/computational science) was
atypical. I didn't get a single offer below $45k, and the only person I know
who took less than that was working in New Zealand.

I guess applied math is the place to be if you want to stay in academia.

~~~
timr
it probably helps to work in an area with "applied" in the name. ;-)

------
adaml_623
Science PhD = Smart + willing to follow orders + conforming + able to focus on
something for years.

You'd be foolish not to hire one.

~~~
FiReaNG3L
The best science PhDs are neither willing to follow orders nor conforming, but
you're right about #1 and 4 :)

~~~
falsestprophet
The best science PhDs aren't looking for "jobs."

~~~
Semiapies
Because genius means you don't need to eat.

~~~
adrianN
Because a position as researcher is usually not considered to be a "job".

~~~
Semiapies
I presume you're not suggesting that _working_ and _getting paid_ are absent
from research positions.

If so, then who doesn't consider that a "job", and why should we care that
they have this bizarre viewpoint?

------
geebee
I'll probably read the whole article, but the first line of the abstract is
already losing me:

"The unemployment rate for PhDs in science, engineering, and health is about
one-fourth that of the general population."

Oh, come on, you're comparing this against the general population? People who
get PhD's in these subjects are typically great high school students who get
into good colleges, major in difficult subject matter with high attrition
rates, score high on standardized tests, survive a highly selective admissions
process to grad school, spend up to a decade in an immensely difficult
academic program with astoundingly high attrition rates compared with elite
medicine, dentistry, law, or mba programs, and do some unpaid postdoc work.

A low unemployment rate compared to the national average. Gee, now there's a
good control group.

For a more sobering viewpoint, take a look at a recent RAND study about the
employment prospects for scientists and engineers _relative to professions_ :

<http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html>

------
mih
A welcome news considering the value of PhD is being questioned of late. But
of course, I speak only for those in STEM subjects.

------
iqster
Yes ... us scientists have an awesome life. We get to implant cameras in the
backs of our head
([http://gothamist.com/2010/12/03/video_photos_nyu_prof_instal...](http://gothamist.com/2010/12/03/video_photos_nyu_prof_installs_came.php)).
Truly the good life!!

~~~
bartonfink
That dude is an art professor if I recall right from the posting the other
day.

~~~
iqster
Fair enough ... I have a PhD in CS (recent). I make it a point to warn people
it is not the good life profs and stupid articles make it out to be.

