
Ph.D. Completion and Attrition: Analysis of Baseline Data (2008) [pdf] - vinchuco
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.phdcompletion.org/resources/cgsnsf2008_sowell.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj95P_2gb3MAhUM2R4KHRa2CCoQFggmMAM&usg=AFQjCNHLz0J1rbC2A1ajmb3R3igIp0BIcg&sig2=io81cXVUh7Fq9pa96YDe8g
======
privong
Mods, can you please update the link to go directly to the pdf
([http://www.phdcompletion.org/resources/cgsnsf2008_sowell.pdf](http://www.phdcompletion.org/resources/cgsnsf2008_sowell.pdf))
rather than going through the google redirect?

~~~
marvy
dang, do you hear this?

------
geebee
Although these general numbers won't be a surprise to someone who has
experienced a PhD program or is well informed about them, I do think the
detailed data is useful.

Congress recently considered legislation that would automatically grant a
green card to anyone who has completed a PhD in certain STEM fields (not all
branches of science qualify). An MS would also count under some circumstances.
The logic behind this is that the people who receive these degrees are very
talented, there is a terrible shortage of them, and that it makes no sense to
force them to leave the US.

I do agree with point one and three. People who get PhDs in hard sciences and
engineering are very talented, and it is truly bizarre to force them to leave
the US. I'm also in favor of the green card, because truth is, people with
these degrees who want to stay tend to be able to, and I think it would be
better to grant them full and free membership in the US labor market, rather
than forcing them to work under more restrictive conditions.

However, I also realize what this legislation means - that PhD programs, which
I consider to be fairly abusive of their students, would now have an amazing
weapon to coerce in their arsenal - they would now be institutions with the
power to bestow green cards. A RAND study found that the aversion to STEM
graduate degrees among people who already have US residency and work rights is
economically rational when you consider other options available to elite
students. [1] The "shortage" is simply a rational response to long completion
times, high attrition rates, and relatively poor employment prospects (again,
compared to the outcome for shorter, more certain degrees with vastly lower
attrition rates). Keep in mind as you read this PhD data that elite law and
medical degrees typically have attrition rates of below one half of one
percent. Pretty much everyone who wants to finish does. I understand there are
some differences here (half a JD isn't useful, half a PhD in CS could be). But
we're talking about a stupendous difference in attrition rates, in a field
where congress is taking legislative action to correct a severe shortage that
supposedly threatens US competitiveness in high tech!

Before we grant this power to universities, they need to answer some tough
questions. Why are general attrition 50-100 times higher than they are in
professional degree programs? Why is it so much higher for women and some
minorities? What are you going to do to remedy this?

[1]
[http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html](http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html)

~~~
mnky9800n
I would respond with a question, why do you think it's appropriate to compare
a vocational training program such as an MD/JD/etc to an academic research
program? They have very different goals.

~~~
geebee
It may in fact not be a valid comparison. But if we're going to speak of a
"shortage" of people going into graduate STEM programs, we can't discuss that
in a vacuum - we need to consider the other options available.

Here's a link to the RAND study (should have included this in the original
post)

[http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html](http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html)

Which does contain a discussion of whether the comparison is appropriate, as
well as a (short) justification of focusing on the doctoral level programs.
Ultimately, though, their justification is largely market based. A couple of
relevant passages:

"Alternatively, if the rewards of other careers—perhaps clinical medicine,
law, or business—are higher and are growing relative to S&E, and if it is
instead the costs of training for a job that are growing for S&E, then there
is no shortage of scientists and engineers in this important fifth sense.
Indeed, in this latter case, the “shortages” thatothers discern may well look
more like discouraging surplusesto young people considering career choice."

"More young people today may arguably enjoy doing science or engineering than
actually plan to prepare for such careers. Instead they may choose a
professional degree, but only reluctantly. In a market economy, even one
characterized by rigidities, regulations and unequal opportunity, qualified
people tend toward career paths whose rewards and satisfactions are becoming
more attractive and/or whose preparatory costs are becoming less onerous."

------
dajohnson89
As an african-american math ph.d. dropout, nice to know that 63% of people
like me also didn't finish. Oh wait, it's awful. At least I'm not alone
though.

~~~
arcanus
That certainly jumped out, as well as the much higher female drop out rates.
Shameful!

Edit: To be clear, I put the vast majority of the blame on the advisor, not
the student. I would not have made it without the remarkable support provided
to me by my mentor. Conversely, I saw much stronger researchers leave for lack
of a good advisor.

~~~
Grishnakh
Seems to me that the entire blame should go to the system itself. The system
is broken, and everything you're seeing here is a symptom of this disease:
lack of good advisors, exploitation of adjuncts, lack of tenured positions,
etc. But there doesn't seem to be much agreement about what exactly is wrong
with the system and what can be done to fix it.

~~~
NobleSir
Or maybe research level mathematics is actually really difficult.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
There's difficult because "the topic is hard" and difficult because "there are
unnecessary social barriers put up" and I've seen a lot more people affected
by the latter than the former.

(source: am a math phd)

~~~
NobleSir
I agree there may be some social barriers, but, for instance 4 of the 10ish
math students that started the phd program in pure math at the same as me were
filtered out by the written exams, another was pulled to industry in her
second year, and another left due to (I think) not being able to finish their
research before his funding ran out (had less due to entering with a masters).
I could be forgetting someone, but I think I am the only one on the pure side,
finishing at the 5 year mark in my program, and I put myself through some
serious sleep deprivation to do it. The applied students seemed to do slightly
better.

------
thefastlane
the opportunity cost of doing a PhD is, more and more, becomingly increasingly
beyond what is tolerable for many academics.

tenure lines are evaporating, adjuncting is a nightmare, postdoc comp is
pitiful... Meanwhile PhD students are competing for ever smaller slices of
ever smaller pies in terms of fellowships.

meanwhile, universities are being taken over by MBAs and running them like
corporations. many people (not just PhD students but staff, etc.) eventually
throw in the towel and say 'fuck it, i'll just go work for an actual
corporation where i'll make a decent salary.'

~~~
bduerst
Working in the commercial sector for a PhD isn't "throwing in the towel".

Academia has always been political and competitive just from the limited
economics of it, so don't construct an MBA scapegoat for "ruining" it.

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
There's definitely a little bitterness as a molecular biology PhD right now.
The senior and emeritus faculty got in during a wave of setting up departments
in the 60s and 70s. Jobs really were almost growing on trees, and the career
trajectories they took are just so beyond what's possible today, well it does
get a little depressing. That said, I think most people recognize that that
was a singular era.

------
arcanus
While 2008 is somewhat old data, a cumulative 10 year phd completion rate of
57% sounds _about_ what I would expect. That implies a cumulative attrition
rate of 43%, which puts it within striking distance of say, the 75-80%
attrition rate associated with Navy SEAL BUD/S.

The attrition rate jump around years 2-3 is almost certainly due to failing
the qualifying exam, which in my experience is by far the largest eliminator.

~~~
cfallin
At least at some schools, a spike at 2 years or so can also come from
"mastering out". In my PhD program we get an MS after completing the required
classes just by filing a form (and I think this is common). Someone who
figures out quickly that they don't like research all that much is well
advised to at least make it to that point.

~~~
Balgair
True! Though not all schools are like that. My brother's made you do an extra
masters thesis on top of the dissertation. Unsurprisingly, most PhDs then just
have the doctorate, and not both. I also concur that the drop rates at 2 years
are due to failing the quals. The more interesting part is then the 3+ year
rates, as those are really the people that dislike research and not just the
ones that can hack it.

------
mathattack
Interesting that Computer Science is the lowest of all the engineering and
science degrees. Any idea why that is? (Higher level of programming required
as a base skill? Too many different skills to master? Too many of the top
undergrads go to industry?)

~~~
ac
I assume you are looking at the table on slide 7. I think that is the
percentage of all who completed relative to those who started it, so whether
many CS undergrads go intro industry (which is most likely the case) or not is
irrelevant. However, I can offer anecdotes from my experience (recent PhD in
CS). First, it is usually easy to find good jobs in the industry while you are
doing your PhD. I think half of students in my department that did machine
learning and computer vision didn't finish their PhD and went off to work at
Google and the likes. It is very tempting, because the hours in a PhD program
are long, stress is high and money is never good. And many CS PhD end up
working in the industry anyway. Second, writing a lot of code isn't necessary
if you're doing pure theory --- but even then you might be making small
prototypes or using proof assistants, so a no-programming research in CS is
rare. Whether you need to master many new skills depends on your background
and what you want to do for your dissertation.

~~~
mathattack
Thanks for the reply.

To clarify on going to industry... If you are a top student with a bachelors
in a field like Physics or Biology - there's aren't as many post-undergrad
options as the top CS student. Therefore, the top Physics and Biology majors
are more likely to head to grad school. Those top students are more likely to
finish on time.

Again - just a hypothesis.

I think your point about mid-Phd CS folks having options is stronger. If
you're 2 years into a Biology Phd program, your options are limited. If you're
2 years into a CS Phd program, the sky is the limit.

I hear you on CS theory. My impression during undergrad was that the grads
were doing a lot of programming in the coursework, and many beyond.

------
JustUhThought
My wife completed her major comps today. We are separated and will likely be
divorced soon. But looks like she'll finish. Yay...

------
ipunchghosts
<austinPowers> What does all mean Basil? </austinPowers>

