(Continued from Part I and Part II)
3. Think for yourself
Today's reading material is this presentation by Dr. Peter S. Fiske. It's about scientists and engineers being forced to explore non-traditional career paths due to PhD gluts. It is also about scientists and engineers being fit to succeed on all kinds of career paths.
95% of PhDs can be expected to leave Academia for good. And yet, a typical PhD+postdoc experience is basically geared towards training new faculty. Partly because you spend all this time in the academic environment. By default, that's what you are going to end up knowing best. And partly because Academia raises its own employees. It's a sensible approach to:
- train all PhD students/postdocs as potential professors;
- hire a few of the most promising, suitable and willing trainees;
- let the outside world sort out the rest.
To be sure, the world and the job market will do just that. And you might want to start thinking about it long before you get your diploma. In fact, unless your are hell-bent on becoming a professor, always keeping one foot outside the door of Academia and in the "real" world is a good idea. Just don't expect anyone on the inside to tell you that.
In short, you might want to stay off the Kool-Aid, keep exploring the opportunities outside the lab and keep your priorities straight. PI's will tend to lecture you about the importance of working really hard on your (their) research projects, coming in on weekends, "living in the lab", pushing yourself and so on. It's OK to nod and say "Amen", but don't forget: your life is your #1 project.
You have a brain that works better than most. You can figure it out.
comments for this post
I've been a student of science for over 10 years. Most of that time I worked in academic research labs. The last and the longest time – in the laboratory of Dr. 
Keep on putting this stuff out. These guys need to be exposed for the scam they are perpetuating. American kiddies should not seek a good life in science anymore. It really is a bad area to be in. A few people will make a good living, that's about it. But even then, they are receiving incredibly little compensation for their intelligence and years of training compared to an MD or even a Wall St. broker.
The rest are going to have to find some "alternative" careers later. It's hard to find an alternative career when everyone views you as a 30 year old loser who couldn't hack it in your own field!! So think now! Go to med school if you still need that sciencey feel. But better yet, if you are smart enough to go into engineering or science, go to wall st, make a lot of money, retire early and work on that PhD for fun. We let foreigners do a lot of our manufacturing why not science? Just think of it as automation. No one misses their possible career as a seamstress right? Same thing is happening to science as happened to farming, photo-development, programming, etc.
Don't be a fucking scientist, you have been warned!!
I think American kids are aware. It's already >50% foreigners in science and engineering in US and Canada, isn't it? James Watson went on about that for a while too (I posted a link, but I went to the same talk when he was at Scripps). He was like "What have you people turned the PhD program into? It's serfdom. It used to be 3 years, now it's 6. Look around, everybody is either Indian or Chinese. American kids don't want this any more. Why would they?" I'd give him a second Nobel prize just for saying stuff like that out loud.
But yeah, I'll say that if you love science – go ahead, get into a PhD program. Learn what you think you'll need, stay on the payroll, use free access to journals, come up with some ideas and plans. Then jump ship, drop out and launch a tech startup with your friends or whoever. Either that, or seriously, spend some time on Wall St. or wherever the money is, and buy yourself a freaking lab. That's what I call independent research.
Wish I was there to see that talk. But I totally agree with Watson. Science has been destroyed by the serfdom it has created. When your only choices are living under communism or living under govt soft money, it's natural to choose the latter.
wow talk about cynicism. what about science pushing the civilization forward. what about science allowing you peak into the intricacies of nature and be bewildered and amazed. what about the dedication of yourself to curiosity and wanting to learn. it's ridiculous that you all are so down on it. why don't you leave science. it won't miss you.
Good job, you have outright equated modern academia with science. In other words, a certain group of people and/or a certain way of doing something with the basic general thing being done. Another example of this would be equating slavery with agriculture. See a problem with that? The two aren't inseparable. Nobody here is attacking Science per se, or is "down" on curiosity and exploring the wonders of the universe. You are the one being ridiculous.
If anything, I started this website because I've always been (more than) into science, and I think that science is paramount to our species. What I'm down on is the mess of how Academia is set up, how resources are managed and how people are treated. It's almost like science has pushed the civilization forward in all respects except how people organize themselves to do science. And I, for one, think that's a shame. Makes sense?
Science won't miss you Andrei... there is a reserve army of graduate and postdoc labour out there (to quote Karl Marx).
Good riddance!
I was joking and hope you do not take it negatively.
3a82
Science is a wonderful thing, but it has become mostly a tool for government money for institutions. For the PIs, they have become skilled players at a glass bead game, a very complex game with little meaning. Grad students and pos-docs have become pawns, told to ignore their finances and social lives. When they realize what they've gotten into, it will be to late to change. The careers they fought so hard for were only a mirage for most. Poor rewards for so many years. They will find an industry indifferent to their intellect, disposing of them quarterly. An academia indifferrent to their sacrifices. The only way to stay in this game is through incredible denial of these realities. Andrei has simply chosen not to live in denial any longer. Beware of American academic science. If you question too much, you will end up like Andrei. If you never question, you'll just continue to sacrifice and wait in vain for your reward.
The way I see it, grad school/postdoc can be worthwhile, especially if you can kick it when it ceases to be. Good news is that you can, anytime. I don't regret getting into a PhD program, it all worked out in the end, and the whole experience served me well. Despite liking science in principle, I could never actually make myself look forward to having a career in it. That was my big dilemma for a number of years. So I went with the flow until I figured out what I could do with my life that would be perfect for me, and that was that. But yeah, the key to avoid getting played is to always play your own game and pack a BS meter any day there is a chance you might be getting career advice.
"I don’t regret getting into a PhD program, it all worked out in the end, and the whole experience served me well."
The whole experience? All five years? Not just the first semester or the first year or even the first four years that worked out well? Even the fifth year worked out well for you? How are you sure do did not waste a year of your life? I am a glad that you did not waste years, but surely it would have been nice to write a dissertation and defend to get the Ph.D. and then say "fuck it" to science because at least you have a palpable sign of accomplishment than the "whole experience".
Nope, that would have been silly. Outside science, that PhD diploma isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
At least you could call yourself Dr. or Ph.D.
:)
Add... wow... even a Ph.D. from Scripps isn't worth much... but I guess getting is the real prize since it is the signal of possessing a high level of general intelligence or conscientiousness. But if the latter the true, you should have said "fuck it" after the first semester instead of doing research for Reza.
Anyone that takes pride in calling themselves "Doctor" because they have a PhD is a moron. You will be laughed out of the room outside of academia. Putting PhD on your resume also makes you overqualified for just about anything outside of science, limiting your employment opportunities to Postdocs and whatever industry positions are left. HR doesn't want to disrespect a PhD by giving them any work outside of their field, since they may run off first chance. Since most people still reside in academia on this site (~84%), these realities have not been shown to Yusei.
Outside of science, the PhD is a big liability. Andrei will have enough trouble just trying to make up for the five years at Scripps. Adding a PhD onto it would only make that much more difficult.
Even Nature has finally had to admit that this science gig is becoming lame and will probably get worse:
http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v2/n5/full/nchem.631.html
Nature Chemistry 2, 337 (2010)
Fight on Andrei.
A short story: one day, while I studied for my finals at the local Dunkin' Donuts (don't ask), I started talking with this guy who sat in the table next to mine. He was drinking some coffee with his daughter, but he'd noticed I was studying physics, which was also his major. So he went on to tell me he did very well professionally, despite that physics degree.
And in our discussion, he was kind enough to tell me how his hiring process worked. And it worked like this:
1. Break al applicants into three piles - a B.S., an M.S., and a Ph.D. pile
2. Throw the Ph.D. pile in the trash - they're expensive, without many real-world skills, and with a difficulty working with other people; finally, they will be gone as soon as something better comes up
3. The M.S. pile is good - it is better educated than the B.S. pile, and it is smaller, which means it's easier to pick a candidate. The B.S. pile is generally a thick pile, hard to comb through.
This is not to say that our goal in life should be to please some old crank reviewing job applications. It shouldn't. And it shouldn't be to fill some nice pre-specified job in industry either. That is just boring, rote, mundane, and unimpressive for anybody with any brains.
But, if getting a job in industry lies on the horizon - and for most of us it does - it's important to recognize that that Ph.D. will not be your gold ticket. That, once you're past your M.S. level, you're probably going to have a harder time getting employed. That your Ph.D. doesn't hold much value unless you can find a Ph.D.-specific position - and in a job market supersaturated with Ph.D. holders, those odds are progressively small.
I think it's appropriate to compare our Ph.D. job market to a solution of Ph.D.s. And when that solution becomes saturated, you start seeing a precipitate of Ph.D.s, sinking to the bottom because they can't dissolve in the job market solution. Yeah, I think it's appropriate.
@ 3a82 Cynicism is selling something you wouldn't let your children buy into. Cynicism is when good people standby and let bad ideas prevail. Andrei pointing out the realities and reflecting on them is not cynical, it's being critical. We are told we need more scientists, that we need them so badly that we have to tax people by force to get them!! Yet society offers very few opportunities for them. You rarely see an MD working outside their field, yet there are all these scientists seeking "alternative careers". Hell, campuses are pushing PhDs into alternative careers. Kind of funny huh?
Andrei pointing out the deficiencies of scientific training at Scripps is no more wrong than pointing out the deficiencies of other institutions. Amazon has plenty of book reviews. They can be helpful, they won't prevent people from reading those books. But they can save you some money on something that may not have been worth your time.
Same thing with this blog. It could save people a lot of years of hurt, or people could ignore it, go right into a PhD program for six years, post-doc for 2-4 years, then start writing their very own reviews on their job prospects....hmm, wonder what they will look like?
if you like science do science. it's ridiculous that everyone feels there is no career in science. A PhD is useless? Are you kidding me? That's extremely disrespectful and has no support behind it whatsoever. The whole point of getting the PhD is to work hard, learn a lot, and publish good results. The whole point of doing science, is to be able to do science. Working hard and obtaining good results in your science will no doubt lead you to a successful career in science, the best rise to the top. Those that weren't don't. It has nothing to do with the state of science in America. This site is pure cynicism. To not see that...you're fooling yourself. To go through school, and have the opportunity to do something you love IS the reward. Complaining about it is not productive, and if you hate it that much, then it wasn't for you. It has nothing to do with the sorry state of science in America, it has to do with those who simply don't excel or have the passion for science that they thought they did.
Umm, sure, there are careers in science, and by all means, successful you can one day become. Especially if you don't let things like family or life get too much in the way, and if "success" does not have to include being well paid for your work. Like hell, I've already written two posts here on how to be successful in academia. Who is this "everyone" person you keep talking about?
Yes, outside of science, a PhD diploma in science is useless. It means no disrespect, it just means you can't use it for anything. Like, you know, the word "use"? It's just a piece of paper. Or wait, is McDonald's offering discounts to PhD holders now? If that's the case, I'm sorry, my bad, I didn't know. )) And don't even try to ask for respect for being a PhD outside the ivory tower land. You are going to look like a pompous loser. That's the kind of behavior that perpetuates the "all scientists are crazy" rep in the world.
You are a perfect poster child for my next post here, which is going to be about graduate student/postdoc motivation. Whoever brainwashed you into the state of mind you're in, they have done an awesome job.
Oh, case closed.
And here I thought that, as a real flesh-and-bone human being, with real responsibilities and obligations - not just to myself and those around me, but to my family as well - that I needed some sort of real income, and that I needed to dedicate myself to other life priorities.
So it's god to know that, as long as I love doing science, science will be all the reward I will ever need. I can pay my mortage with my love for science. I can buy this week's groceries with my love for science. I can ignore my family because of my love for science. Better yet, I can marry science instead. Have little science babies, and have science mother them while I work on my research.
Let's be real. Science and engineering are profitable, and there are plenty of financial resources to go around. That is why, for example, U. of Illinois president Michael Hogan makes >$600,000/year + $225,000 retention bonus + presidential house + presidential perks. It is also why, General Electric, United Technologies, Genentech, IBM, etc, dedicate enormous financial resources to research & development.
Money is there. It's just that, for some odd reason, it is not trickling down to us - until we've done a Ph.D., two post-docs, become adjunct faculty somewhere, adjunct faculty elsewhere, earned a nobel prize - and then maybe, you can live with a degree of comfort and peace, knowing you can provide for yourself, and your kids - who, by now might have their own families to support.
We are human beings first, scientists second. And we should not have to choose between one and the other. But somehow, science demands that we forfeit all else for the sake of science itself. That we should produce science for the sake of producing science, without demanding a modicum of compensation, so that we can raise a family and feed and house ourselves without falling into more educational debt.
Science, in a way, is demanding that we be willing to become martyrs for its sake. Perhaps that is another reason why so few bright, self-respecting americans today choose to pursue a science Ph.D.
I only argued that from the perspective of a fifth year grad student that pursuing a PhD might be worth it if you at least have a decent lab notebooks and some publications (so you could base your thesis is some research) because your five years are already a sunk cost that was already defrayed and cannot be refunded. Of course, for a grad student in the first semester who did not invest a half-decade of his life, then from his perspective pursuing a PhD would not be worth it unless they have certitude of getting a good career in academia.
Again, a PhD from Scripps isn't worth much.... just wow!
It is pretty obvious you haven't been very involved in the field.
Let's be clear about one thing: curiosity and dedication to learning are human traits. What academia provides us with is the resources and connections to facilitate creative achievement. I can argue that academia goes so far as to kill not only your natural curiosity, but your creativity also.
And why not? Like Edison once said, genius is 2% inspiration and 98% perspiration. You don't need kids with great minds, you need kids with a great work attitude. So long as they can digest the requisite science, a hard worker is more important than a brilliant one.
Don't get me wrong. Hard work is important, and the foundation to success in nearly every endeavor in life. But let's call a spade a spade: our educational system is not one which cradles your curiosity and creativity of mind. It is one that encourages you to think not your way, but their way, and to work not for your ideas, but their ideas.
If we want the scientific establishment to be sustainable, it has to be willing to accomodate human traits - such as the need for 8 hours sleep daily, the need to maintain a well-rounded diet, and the desire to start a family at some point in our young lives, among many others.
It is fair to demand effort and dedication to our work. But it is naive to demand that we give up all other priorities in life. No wonder no american kid wants to pursue science any more - what intelligent kid would subject themselves to a system that demands everything out of you, only to spit you out like bad meat if you don't make the cut?
Well this problem should be self-correcting. Get the people who can't cut it out of science. Then the demand for labor will increase and scientists will be treated better. Maybe the problem is that we have overlionized the process of "getting a PhD" (the PhD is the new BA) and so there are so many incompetent people flooding the market?
Your argument also makes no sense.
What intelligent kid would ever want to become an I-Banker and enter a system that demands everything out of you, only to spit you out like bad meat if you don't make the cut?
What intelligent kid would ever want to become a doctor and spend 7-10 years in a system that saps the life out of you, only to spit you out like bad meat if you don't make the cut?
The reason why people try to become doctors, banksters, or, yes, professors, is that the payoff is huge. For banksters, you get coin. For doctors, you get coin and prestige, for professors you get to be a tyrannical dick and make like you're smarter than everyone else and control *how people think* (and make coin, too).
There is no short supply of people who would give their lives to be such a person. The problem is not that the incentives to go into academia are too low, the problem is that there are too many people who have overvalued the process and pushed incompetents onto the assembly line.
diordmehc, it takes a fool to believe that prestige and fame and wealth - all lumped into one big payout - are key to a good, rewarding life.
My best personal guess is that if you are so desperate for social confirmation that you are indeed better than those around you, well you have quite some issues to work through.
The pursuit of knowledge is a human endeavor, not an academic one. Academia provides you with tools and other experts. But academia lives off of prestige, largely because if you can secure prestige, than you stand a better chance of attracting better faculty and better students/post-docs into your program - and hence more money to support operations.
The result of this hunger for prestige is that academia will only consider those with immaculate credentials. I won't get into a detailed argument about why this is a flawed ideology. Instead I will point you to the example of Albert Einstein, who by all accounts was always a mediocre student, and one with no real potential by academia's definition. His academic performance was spotty and without evidence of superior ability.
I don't need to remind you that few minds have matched the caliber of Albert Einstein, both in quality of their intellectual contributions, and in their impact to our understanding of our world.
Academia is selecting for individuals that consistently do an excellent job of doing as they're told, in assignments, in exams, and in research that belongs not so much to you as to your adviser. It seems that, according to you, the most promising researchers are those with immaculate records of superior academic achievement. Perhaps you're one of these persons yourself.
In which case I would like to ask you - what have been your intellectual contributions to science? Because Mr. Einstein, a mediocre student with a spotty academic performance, achieved more by age 25 while working at the patent office than most researchers with impeccable academic credentials achieve by age 65.
Do you really want to pretend that our educational system is perfect, and that our measures of intellectual ability are flawless - such that if a student doesn't fare well it's a sure indication of his/her lack of ability?
Do you really want to pretend that it will benefit us all to filter out the rebel minds of our time - The ones that dare set their own direction, and not just tag along their advisers direction (in all their academic superbdom)?
And while we're here, let's talk about the issue of student suicides, attempted suicides, and severe depression in academia, which are directly attributable to the tremendous pressures facing anybody wishing to go into research. Not only have we created a system that filters out brilliant rebel minds capable of truly groundbreaking work - leaving us only with those capable of producing rote work in a zombie-like fashion - but we're submitting those that remain to unusual and cruel punishment under the pretense of "building them up", "making them the best", and so on.
Here's the thing - by the time you get to the Ph.D. level, the minds that are most capable of producing ground-breaking, world-changing work have pursued more promising directions and hence have dropped out of academia along with the scores of individuals who don't have the ability to produce meaningful work (the classic "throw the baby out with the bath water"). That leaves you with those capable of producing good, but rote work, but their supply/demand balance is so fucked that demands continue to creep up. And academia being academia and hungry primarily for prestige, these demands come up in the form of more credentials, from more prestigious institutions, more publications in prestigious journals, more prestigious conferences, etc. The result is that among those capable of meaningful but rote work left in academia, you are now selecting for the ability to withstand severe psychological stress. And the unfortunate side effect of this process is that those who cannot withstand this severe psychological stress don't simply drop out (although some of the smarter ones do) - they fall into depression, and some find themselves on the verge of suicide. I suppose this quite ethical and humane, so long as it's "for the good of science"?
So, in short:
1. You are wrong. Prestige and fame, all wrapped up into one super package, are not reason to pursue graduate studies. They are the object of pursuit only for the insecure of character. Ironically, they are also the rewards used to sell a military career to highschool graduates - something which I, being in the military, can attest to. And having been through both military and academia, I've developed quite a robust "bullshit" detector - it's all very simple: if I'm being sold on an abstract idea like "character", "honor", or "prestige", somebody's trying to get me to do their dirty work without paying for it. Otherwise, in a healthy market, if there is true demand for your services, your compensation will involve more than an abstract idea - it will involve something tangible, like money.
2. You are wrong. Some of the brightest minds of our time are precisely the type of incompetent students you suggest we filter out - aka Albert Einstein.
Hey man I'm not advocating a course of action. I am just saying - that's the way it is.
1) Prestige and fame, all wrapped up into one super package, are not reason to pursue graduate studies.
I agree. But you would be surprised how many people do that.
2) Some of the brightest minds of our time are precisely the type of incompetent students you suggest we filter out - aka Albert Einstein.
I agree that is a consequence, and I'm not advocating that course of action. What I am saying is that THIS IS HAPPENING.
1) Learn to read.
2) Wake up to the truth, dumbass.
alright, maybe I need to explain:
The incompetency that I'm talking about is the lack of creativity, the lack of scientific drive. What is happening is that science is being commoditized; people are being pushed into science because hands are needed, people are being pushed into science because some politburo wants to put up the number to show that [insert country name here] can produce PhDs to compete. People are being pushed into grad school because they are listless and have no other 'real job options' out of college. This results in a dilution of true scientific talent, like, say, an Einstein.
Competence is not a thing you can test for. However, you can quickly identify *incompetence*. And there's a lot of it out there.
Also, you are completely wrong about compensation being strictly monetary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
Compensation is not strictly monetary. But it should include a tangible reward. That is because you do need to feed house yourself - and, possibly, a family. If you provide a service of value to someone, then it is fair that they retribute by compensating you accordingly.
Of course social recognition is a reward - especially when it is given so scarcely. But it is no substitute for a tangible reward. You can't pay rent with social recognition. And you can't buy bread with it either.
But - social recognition is cheap. Nay, it's free. And so it is not only easy to attract cheap - or even free - labor, assuming you can provide them with a meaningul social reward, it is desirable to do so when you're strapped for cash - or when you simply don't want to pay.
I remember when I first met my recruiter for the U.S. Marines (no, I did not join the Marines). Now, these are some tough folks, but it was obvious to me they were preying on my desire for self-worth confirmation and social recognition. And so every visit to my recruiter's office included a schpiel on how the Marines are the best, and it takes a special breed to want to be a Marine, and how the Marines are the only servicemen to directly guard the president of the United States, and so on.
I am not saying the Marines aren't in fact tough. They are. But my point is that they were trying to buy my enlistment strictly with intangible rewards - self-worth, social recognition, etc. Tangible rewards, such as compensation, never entered the discussion, other than to discourage their pursuit. E.g. "real Marines don't come in because of money" - which was good, because you wouldn't be getting much of it anyway.
And I see a parallel in academia. You are discouraged from wanting an adequate compensation package commensurate with your education, skill, time, and effort. Should the issue arise, you are always told the one thing like a mantra: "if you're here for money, you're in the wrong place". Ignore your life necessities, and your desire to one day own a home and support a family - they cost money, and the desire for an adequate ammount of it is surely the mark of someone who doesn't belong in academia at all.
This is especially ironic, since it is graduate students and post-docs who do much of the teaching for freshman courses; who do most of the hands-on work that makes experiments run. They give all their time and labor to academia, and in exchange are paid commensurately with a grocery bagger at a supermarket.
But university officials - well, now, that's a whole 'nother story. Because god forbid a university president, like U. of Illinois Michael hogan, gets paid anything other than a fat-cat corporate style salary - $600,000/yr base salary, plus $225,000 retention bonus, plus president's house and other presidential perks.
And so there is a double standard. You shouldn't expect to receive adequate compensation for your services as a research/teaching assistant, and you should be thankful if you're paid on the level of a grocery bagger. Unless you're a high-ranking university official, in which case you should receive corporate-style compensation packages, to
align your self interests with the university interestsmake sure you do your job. Good timesWell, the dilution of real talent in the sciences isn't really a problem because if the truely talented remain the the sciences such as an "Einstein" they would still distinguish themselves among the mediocre scientists, even if there are more of them to compete against. In this case, the real problem is not the "scientific establishment" of academia (or industry) but other sectors of the economy driving away talented scientists from being scientists.
BTW, regarding the allegedly low pay of scientists/post-docs, who cares? Many other sectors of the economy have workers that suffer from inadequate compensation, so why are scientists entitled to higher pay than those individuals? Why aren't there blogs protesting the low pay for Single and Double A professional baseball players (the minimum salary is $1500 a month for double-A players)?
http://nationalsportsandentertainment.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/pay-structure-of-minor-league-baseball-players/
Baseball isn't vital to our national health (although some would dispute that). Science & technology provide the discoveries that will lead to new cures for diseases, to new defense systems that protect our borders, to new high-tech gadgets that drive our econonomy. Baseball provides entertainment and leisure.
A science PhD is no small feat. It is not a pleasant experience either. Given the choice between a grueling decade-long PhD education and the training regimen required of a baseball player, I'll take the latter any day. I would, that is - if I had the genetic makeup to outcompete the majority of the population in baseball.
But the point is this: science & engineering is vital to the health and progress of society as a whole, and a PhD in science requires a tremendous effort. Given the value of a PhD education to society and the tremendous effort required of it, there is a justification to provide incentives for individuals who choose to pursue a science PhD.
But that's the idealized scenario. In reality, we are in the midst of a science & engineering PhD glut, which has created a significant oversupply of PhD holders - leaving us to fight with each other for the few jobs available. And because the lowest bidder stands a better chance of securing a job, the result is a bunch of PhD holders, all driving each other's value down for the chance of securing that rare PhD-level position.
So, unfortunately, there are too many PhD holders for an exceedingly small number of PhD-level opportunities. Society needs us, but it doesn't need all of us. This should be a self-correcting problem - and you should see a healthy drop in PhD enrollments, reflecting the lack of opportunity facing PhD grads. But instead, we maintain artificially high PhD enrollments by importing unusually high numbers of students from overseas - roughly 50% of all PhD candidates, the majority of which have expressed intentions of working in the U.S. after graduation. So the oversupply of PhDs continues, even as american PhD enrollments drops.
Should we care? I think so. When we run somebody through such a grueling training period, we should also strive to provide them with sufficient opportunity - an outlet for their talents, and a reward for their efforts.
What happens when we fail to match supply of PhD graduates with demand for PhD holders? All you have to do is watch The Simpsons' mockery of grad students (found e.g. on YouTube). The outcome for a PhD graduate has become so poor, and the decision to pursue PhD studies such a bad idea, that instead of a symbol of achievement and intellectual ability, the PhD is now the subject of mockery and the synonim of 'a bad life choice'.
So the poor prospects of PhD holders seeps into our popular culture - and not just to the immediate acquaintances of a PhD candidate. And the result is that even fewer bright kids will consider the PhD as a viable option. Again, if the poor career and financial prospects weren't enough reason to deter bright kids from pursuing a PhD in science, the social punishment seeping into our popular culture certainly provides further incentive to stay away from PhD candidacy. And this would all be healthy - because it would allow for the oversupply of PhD holders to correct itself naturally, by deterring excess candidates from entering the PhD program.
But we're not allowing that natural correction to take place. Even as fewer and fewer americans enroll in PhD programs, we continue to maintain artificially high PhD enrollments by importing PhD candidates.
I think we have a problem, and I think it needs to be addressed. I think the lack of career prospects and the poor financial outcome associated with a PhD were just the early indications of an oversupply problem. And I think that the deterioration of PhD candidates/holders in our popular culture is an advanced indication of our PhD oversupply problem. And if we want any self-respecting americans to rise through the ranks of science & engineering going into the future, then this issue does need to be addressed.
So, bottom line is yes, we should care that scientists/post-docs have such poor career and financial prospects.
"A science PhD is no small feat. It is not a pleasant experience either. Given the choice between a grueling decade-long PhD education and the training regimen required of a baseball player, I'll take the latter any day. I would, that is - if I had the genetic makeup to outcompete the majority of the population in baseball."
That doesn't mean anything. I'm sure most guys would choose a career in baseball if they had the talent to make it to the big leagues and earn millions throughout their career, even if they have little passion for playing the game itself. Not to mention that being a MLB player offers more prestige that most occupations, even if one is merely a backup outfielder or long reliever. Perhaps being a principal investigator for a research university has more prestige than the lowest MLB player, but being a good player in the Majors has more prestige than them.
By saying that you would only consider playing professional baseball if it was a near certitude that you would play in the majors, you really don't believe that working as a post-doc or graduate student for an opportunity (arbitrarily defined as a 10 percent chance) to be a tenure track professor is worse than playing double-A ball for years for the opportunity to play as a mediocre position player/back-end starter, reliever in the Majors for $2,000. (you might argue that the Minor Leaguer has a better expected value since they would earn at least $400,000 in the majors while a professor might earn only in the mid to high 10 thousands if he/she is accepted as a tenure track professor, but the point is Minor Leaguers and graduate students face analogous situations.
But my intention was not merely to articulate the alleged economic grievance of Minor League baseball players, but to argue against the notion that I should specifically care about the financial travails of graduate students and post-docs relative to the general population.
"But that's the idealized scenario. In reality, we are in the midst of a science & engineering PhD glut, which has created a significant oversupply of PhD holders - leaving us to fight with each other for the few jobs available. And because the lowest bidder stands a better chance of securing a job, the result is a bunch of PhD holders, all driving each other's value down for the chance of securing that rare PhD-level position."
That sounds like many jobs in the United States and in the global economy, not just for PhD students. Read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich.
RIP Jason Altom,
Unfortunately, Wall Street took all our snacks. And, so it's just PhD holders who have been left out in the rain - it is also, and especially, non-PhD holders.
But that is the result of the speculative, over-leveraged greed that drove Wall Street to the ground in 2008 - or would've, if our taxpayers didn't come to their rescue; if the middle class didn't bear the weight of the bad decisions made by upper class elitist know-it-alls.
But my bitterness with Wall Street, and all who reside in it is not our concern here.
The issue with the PhD glut is this: that it existed well before the 2008 Great Recession. And so you can't point to the effects of the Great Recession and say "well, yeah, non-PhD holders are struggling too". They are, and most of them are better than the hand they've been dealt.
But our issue is with the continued PhD glut, which we have sustained since well before the Great Recession. And we need to let this glut to correct itself, naturally. That will mean fewer PhD candidates, but it's something that will eventually have to happen.
Just because you can throw a lot of money into the training of a PhD holder, doesn't mean you have a system that can support said PhD holder. What we need is a system that works for PhD holders as much as it does for the making of these PhD holders.
"BTW, regarding the allegedly low pay of scientists/post-docs, who cares? Many other sectors of the economy have workers that suffer from inadequate compensation, so why are scientists entitled to higher pay than those individuals?"
Because most other careers don't have a tax/government supported monopsony system of artificial scarcity combined with low pay. It takes a special kind of idiocy to create both a shortage of personnel and low incomes for them.
god damn it, I wish I could edit my posts.
"Prestige and fame, all wrapped up into one super package, are not reason to pursue graduate studies. They are the object of pursuit only for the insecure of character"
Are you making the assertion that academia is not full of people insecure of character? I mean seriously, most of us were bullied in primary school, got spurned by that person who we had a crush on, et cetera. Which academia were you a part of?
You are dead on that point - academia is insecurity incarnate. And unfortunately people go on to pursue PhDs and JDs and MDs because of their own insecurities. But the best and most impressive researchers go there because they're inspired to study their world, not because they want prestige or recognition. They are a minority, but they are the few who are there for the right reasons. And the point is that we need kids who are inspired to study their world, not kids who can think of no other way to battle their insecurities.
It might also be worth it to point out that the whole 'albert einstein sucked academically' was a total myth. He basically got good grades. He was largely passed over for academic positions, probably in no small part because he was a Jew, and could only find a post in the Patent Office, which, being a government beaurocracy, is about as stifling a place as you could be.
"Well this problem should be self-correcting. Get the people who can't cut it out of science. Then the demand for labor will increase and scientists will be treated better. Maybe the problem is that we have overlionized the process of "getting a PhD" (the PhD is the new BA) and so there are so many incompetent people flooding the market?"
Doesn't the process of getting the PhD require intelligence and conscientiousness. Regarding the latter, doesn't doing 4-6 years of research weed out those who are not conscientious enough, and the GRE weeds out the former.
But you are mistaking the GRE for a valid measure of a student's intellectual ability. It is not.
And while a PhD certainly requires intellect and conscientiousness - especially conscientiousness - it especially requires creativity. But there is no standardized test for creativity. How could there be? After all, creativity isn't standard. And you can't assign it a number.
The problem in our academic institutions is that we pretend that we can predict who will make a promising researcher based on a few standard markers. Like the GRE. Or the SAT. Or the GPA.
But research is much more than that. You can't encapsulate the capacity for creative research in a standardized test - or a series of standardized tests, no matter how many. For the same reason that you can't encapsulate a human being based on the amount of each chemical species present in their bodies. Because a human body is far more than the mere superposition of many different atoms. It matters how these atoms interact with each other; it matters how these atoms are organized.
In much the same way, in creative research it matters how the individual's different capabilities come together - his or her knack for mathematics, creativity, persistence, curiosity, and many other traits you can't begin to qualify, nevermind quantify.
Is there a correlation between GRE performance and success as a graduate student? Sure. But that is only a small piece of the puzzle. And this is no ordinary puzzle, either. It's one where a lot of creativity and persistence can make up for a shortcoming in mathematics, for example - especially because not all groundbreaking research involves complex mathematics. But all groundbreaking research must involve creativity, and it all must involve persistence too. But, ahh, these aren't measured.
The human body is incredible. It can take many variations. You can have short and stubby folks, and lean and tall folks. And the short and stubby folks would have a very hard time outcompeting the lean and tall folks in swimming, for example - but, depending on their physiological make-up, they would have an immediate advantage in powerlifting, where shorter limbs means that less force needs to be generated in order to lift the same weight. And the best powerlifters in the world tend to be short and stubby for this reason.
This last paragraph is meant to illustrate how different physical statures tend to dominate in different athletic endeavors. That, statistically, the best swimmers tend to be tall and lean, and that, statistically, the best powerlifters tend to be short and stubby. So "tall and lea"n has a natural area where it excels, and "short and stubby" has a natural area where it excels. And that is because different endeavors require different strengths.
The same can be said about creative research. All creative research is not equal. Different creative endeavors require different capabilities. And individuals that excel in one area of creative work will not necessarily excel in another area of creative work. For example, individuals that excel in mathematics may not excel in experimental work, and vice-versa.
And the point is that we are weeding out kids who don't get a 780 in their Quantitative GRE portion, for example, without regard for the basic facts that (i) not all meaningful creative work requires impecabble math skills, and often it requires intangibles - like creativity - which are not measured in any standardized test, and (ii) not all individuals capable of meaningful creative research have impeccable math quantitative skills. To weed somebody out by default simply because they did not have the very best Q-GRE scores is not only foolish, it is counterproductive. But it's something we commonly do in academic admissions.
And then they wonder why so many of their brilliant students go on to produce no meaningful research work...
Hey, you should do a career guide for chemists like Greenspun's:
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/
What about Joyce (from Scripps)? Is he a good slave driver, too, profiting from the labor of his serfs (graduate students and postdocs)?
I wish him well...
Gerald Joyce was on my exam/thesis committee at Scripps actually (along with Peter Schultz and Floyd Romesberg). But I don't know whether he is a good slave driver or a bad slave driver. )) I have zero doubt he is good at getting the most out of his people though, whatever methods he uses. His academic success depends on it like anybody else's. He is pretty successful already, but he wasn't resting on his laurels last time I checked.
Thanks for tell me about Gerald Joyce since I heard about him before. From meeting him, is he the type of person who would say cynical things like "Welcome to the world of bullshit. There is much you can learn here"? As far as I could tell, he has a genius intellect and a perspicacious mind (I'd guess three and half sigma), not merely a person who could ace exams with conscientiousness and one-sigma general intelligence. He seems to have a passionate interest in his field of research (molecular evolution with RNA catalysts), and perhaps his enthusiasm is a contagious motivator for his grad students and post-docs.
BTW, what do you think about the song?
One time in class he asked a socratic question: "why did nature put poly(A) tails on RNA". It was my proudest moment to immediately quip, "so that we could create cDNA libraries". He appreciated the humor.
Here is a good song for graduate students ("Last Train" by Knotlap -- the Japanese version of the song was the opening for the second season of Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's):
I'll finally escape from my saturated life today
I don't know what is going on today
But somehow I feel that my answer isn't here
Though I don't know how my life will end,
I never wanna be a slave
'Cause there is always the chance to change
I guess it's up to you
I'm trying to be a better person
I will get on the train
I don't wanna become a slave
I will live for myself
I'm trying to be another me
'Cause I won't lose my life
My life will succeed
I'll reach my goal
I try to smile but I can't remember how
I don't know
please tell me, how'd I become so Jaded?
Sometimes I feel like I might be dead soon
But I know that it gave me something to believe
Though I don't know how my life will end
I never wanna be a slave
'Cause there is always the chance to change
I guess it's up to you
I'm trying to be a better person
I will get on the train
I don't wanna become a slave
I will live for myself
I'm trying to be another me
'Cause I won't lose my life
My life will succeed
I'll reach my goal
I'm waiting for my dawn
I'm dreaming of freedom
Nobody Knows my worries
No need to understand me
I wanna get this small freedom
I break away my worries
It's time to say goodbye
I'm not afraid of you
I need to walk away
'Cause I don't wanna be a liar
If I cannot live my life,
I am as good as dead
I'm trying to be a better person
I will get on the train
I don't wanna become a slave
I will live for myself
I'm trying to be another me
'Cause I won't lose my life
My life will succeed I'll reach my goal
My new story
My life is just about to start
I'm trying to be a better person
I will get on the train
I don't wanna become a slave
I will live for myself
I'm trying to be another me
'Cause I won't lose my life
My life will succeed
I'll reach my goal
http://www.janime.info/5DS/songs/op02.html (Lyrics)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8ezagyIyl8 (The Link)
My personal experience in grad-land is that most of us aren't so bright. Matter of fact, the most productive grad students can be pretty dumb people. Aside from their ability to (i) do as told, (ii) take severe criticism, and (iii) live as though their own well-being isn't very important, many of these most productive students seem
incapableterrified of thinking for themselves, and see where their own crazy thoughts lead them. I'm afraid that we're taking brilliant kids, brain-washing them into believing that they have to think only a certain way, and stripping them of their most important asset - that crazy, rebellious creativity that leads to truly meaningful science.The most fascinating part is that we learn to work so hard for no reward - we literally learn to live, as Andrei has said in a different post, for the sole look of approval in our adviser's eyes. Boy, talk about sad.
Well, I guess from my experience in grad school, I think it's always important to remember that being a scientist does not exclude you from being human, and that precisely because of that, there's a lot more to life than just being a scientist (Did he really just say that? Snap!). I think the problem that a lot of Grad students face in Grad school is that of alienation and loss of social skills, something that you MUST have if you want to make it past Grad school and be successful.
I see a lot of people here bashing Andrei's decision, but he had the vision and determination to do what HE thought was best for him. No point wasting your life doing something you do not enjoy.
I thought thiese article hit it spot on about surviving in grad school:
1) http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2011/06/06/advice_for_graduate_students
2) http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2011/06/08/advice_on_writing_for_graduate_students
One should stay alert for and open to opportunities other than sticking it out all the way to the PhD. Some such possibilities may work out much better for you in the long run. "There are a lot of interesting things to do in life besides being a scientist,"... "and in some the job market is a lot better."
Unfortunately, unless you've explored other interests during your PhD studies, you will have no idea what else to do. Which works out great for your department, because it makes you less likely to just take off, never to be seen again.
So it's important to be good at things other than your research area and your discipline. You have earned very good analytical abilities, but that is not enough - you will need some vision, lots of motivation, and lots of time to make something else happen.
It's not a downhill ride. There are substantial potential barriers between you as a grad student and you as something else. And because there are potential barriers, there are also those who will not make it - there will be a probability distribution governing the odds of success upon transitioning from grad student to something else.
So it's not enough to have your excellent analytical abilities. They will help, but not much, unless you have fvcked around with other interests, from which you can pry a little bit of vision and a little bit of motivation. Then your analytical abilities might take you somewhere.
Bottom line is: fuck around with other, non-research, non-academic interests.
I am immensely angered by this new push by Obama to let even more Phd and MS from outside the national economy to enter the work force and increase the labor arbitrage but at the same time mislead Americans to go into STEM fields? What is it? Do these people have no knowledge of the world or are they just dishonest?
So am I. It drives me nuts to hear politicians, academia, and government organizations like the NSF cry about a "shortage" of scientists and engineers - when, in fact, there is such a gross oversupply of us that nearly every Ph.D. graduate gets trapped in the post-doc holding pattern rut.
If there is such a dire shortage of scientists, why not just dip into these frustrated and disillusioned Ph.D graduates who have to settle for a post-doc for lack of a real, permanent opportunity?
The more I hear this "science shortage" crap, the more I am convinced that this is not about a "science shortage" at all, but about a "cheap science shortage". It's not that we don't have enough scientists, it's that we don't have enough cheap scientists. So, they cry "not enough scientists" to congress, which goes on to expand the number of visas awarded to foreigners, who are willing to just come to the States, and who will do our research for much less.
That said, I have to moderate my comment by saying that I have only appreciation for the work these bright foeign individuals do. It's just that we can't simultaneously cry to our kids that they need to pursue a 10 year college education in science, and then bring in foreigners to compete with them. Because if science is going to be so rude to me, I'll just go study something else.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear a news segment on this "shortage" of american science students. Invariably, they will point to other more profitable jobs as the reason american kids stray from science.
...but, they forget the obvious: the lack of opportunity at the Ph.D. level. Look, everybody likes a little money to pay their bills, but kids who like science don't leave science just to pursue the green trail in business or law. They leave because there is too little opportunity for them in science - anything beyond a Ph.D. is a gross bottleneck of doctorates competing for that rare steady Ph.D. position; anything below the Ph.D. and you're not a scientist at all, you're a technician preparing lab samples for real scientists.
I think they've got it wrong. I think the real reason we're losing american students in science is not because other fields pay a lot more - most of us are keenly aware of the salary differences from our freshman years - but because there not enough attractive, steady jobs, period. What we need to do is not to funnel more funds to the creation of a Ph.D. graduate, but to channel funds to the creation of Ph.D. level positions - REAL scientist positions that are steady and pay well enough for you to make a living.
But, instead, they insist on overproducing Ph.D. graduates, dump them into a black box of unemployment or underemployment, and cry 'foul' when american kids develop an aversion to science. And then we find the need to recruit Ph.D. students from overseas, which further aggravates the real problem with science in the U.S. - the fact that there simply are too few real, steady opportunities as real scientists. At the Ph.D. level the competition is too fierce to find a job, and below the Ph.D. level you're not a scientist at all, you're a mere technician, perpetually working under a Ph.D. holder. And, heck, in that situation, you're better off in a field like business, where a Masters degree allows you to rise through the ranks, and not be confined into perpetual peon positions under Ph.D. holders.
And no, a Post-Doc is not a real job, and neither is a temporary 1-yr assignment with corporation XYZ. Create real demand for scientists, and the american kids will line up for them.
A question for graduate drop-outs: What skills or knowledge helped you most outside of academia? Were these skills the result of courses and research work, or were they the result of hobbies and outside interests?
I am curious - what is the best way to leverage yourself in grad school, in case it leads you nowhere? Is it to take extra coursework in other disciplines, or is it to explore other interests on your own? Or, is it to build and maintain a strong network of friends who can help you out when you're done?
There must be some way of leveraging yourself so you don't fall off the abyss when you realize grad school isn't working out - or, similarly, when you do finish your Ph.D. studies but realize there is no opportunity out there for you, other than a continuation of your Ph.D. studies in the form of a post-doc.
There really are not many ways to leverage the PhD experience. You are very dependent on people just believing it has some indication of your ability. Otherwise, you are crammed into low paying education gigs, crap perma-temp gigs in research, etc. Many grads simply have to go back to school for further education.
Two situations come to mind:
1) You went to graduate school and were expected to be a drone in the lab, spending countless hours on your boss' stuff and are at the mercy of any recommendation they may give you. This situation is common and leads the most difficult transitions out of graduate school. If people do find a way out, they are relieved they will never work that hard again.
2) You were in a theoretical area, got lots of computer experience etc. This gives students the most time to branch out, network and maybe take some classes in something on the side. These people do a lot better and can sound far more intelligent and knowledgeable than lab drones. These people have sharper minds and can more easily navigate out of academia.
Just my experience in grad school so far.
One thing I have noticed is that academia is never wrong. If you go through academia, you will succeed. And when you fail it is your fault - you weren't cut out for it, you didn't work hard enough. Or it was the economy, that was so bad nobody could get a job. Or it was your uncle, whom nobody liked. Ok, maybe that last one doesn't come up often - unless your Noelle Bush, and your uncle is, well, you'll figure it out.
But the point it, academia is never at fault. There is never anything that needs change, in academia. Success rates are perfect, the process of a Ph.D. is optimized and needs no change, the length of a Ph.D. is as short as it should be, and the sacrifices made by Ph.D. students aren't sacrifices - instead they're opportunities. Opportunities to be the best, to build character, to learn how to make do with little, to realize that the best experiences in life happen in a small lab when nobody else is around - partly because everybody else is asleep.
Opportunities.
But, just maybe, there is a better way to do the Ph.D. Maybe, it can be improved further - heck everything else can. Maybe, like every other institution on the face of Earth, academia needs to adapt to the times. Even greedy corporations can do it. Even the catholic church is doing it.
Maybe there is a better way of doing the Ph.D. - one which actually works for the student, and not just for the student's P.I.
Or, maybe not. After all, when you finish that Ph.D., you'll be called "doctor". With a title like that, why change a thing? Pfft.
The never wrong thing is another big idea. Just know, prospective student, that you are entering a place where even if something is completely not your fault, it is built to lay the blame on you while capturing the maximum credit from any of your success. And that is when academia works as designed!!!
your life is your #1 project.
Oh god, I'm sharing that quote with everyone I know. I'm in the tail end of a 6+ year biology Ph.D. and truer words were never spoken. It is so easy to lose perspective especially when everyone around you looks down on anything that isn't academia. I have kept a foot in the real world, but totally under the table from my advisor. Can't wait until I graduate and can finally be honest about my heretic "science for society" interests.
I am keeping the birth of my child a secret from anyone here. Today I am taking tools home so they don't get stolen, because they always get stolen and if you mention that your tools got stolen the reaction amounts to "you should have been here watching them."
I could go on and on. You can say that some of these are partly my fault, and I wouldn't disagree, but the place is still fucking mental.
Andrei, this is a nice site and I'm liking the honesty. I am a 3rd year PhD student and I can tell that my pet peeves about academia are similar to yours. Currently I am ambivalent about a future in academia. I hate institutions but I love universities. Where else would I find such good database access and relative freedom to do what I wish with that access?