The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The plight of the [PhD]
VishNub
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, I'm a bit self conscious writing this, because, well, first world problems. But they're my first world problems, and I think we have enough people on the board who are or have been in academia as post docs, grad students, and perhaps even some professors that we could probably assembly something approaching a respectable discussion panel.
The very short version of this thread is my attempt to reconcile the following article and two infographics. I'll add a couple of anecdotes at the end, and maybe throw up some questions.
This blog post, by John Skylar, was sent to me by my girlfriend. A Career in Science Will Cost You Your Firstborn
Lifetime earnings increase, more or less, with education level. OK. Sure. Hooray education.
I'm finishing (hopefully) a PhD in Organic Chemistry at a major research university in the US. I always wanted to do science, and I sort of tracked into chemistry because I had a good teacher in highschool, and nothing in college particularly dissuaded me. It's not a passion for me, but it's something I enjoy, and I was at under the impression that, at the end of the day, would pay the bills. Plus I graduated in 2009, and so school seemed like it would probably be a good idea. I applied to the PhD program a few places, got into some of them, and picked my favorite.
A couple of stories: Two years later, I go home, I'm hanging out with some old friends and we're buying pitchers of beer at the bowling alley. They're buying local microbrews, and I'm buying PBR, because that's what I can afford. They went straight into "real" jobs, I stayed in school.
What no one tells you when you enter grad school is that it's HARD. Of the people who entered in my year, 50% were gone within two years. There's a combination of reasons, some people couldn't or wouldn't cut it academically. Some people wanted a real life. That attrition rate is normal, as far as I can tell, but no one bothered to mention it. Statistics exist, I can link them if needed, but for my university, PhD completion rates max out at 50%, even after >7 years. This is fine, I guess, but someone should have told us.
I could go on with more stories, and perhaps I will. There's all kinds of things that annoy me about academia. Here's a big question though: Academic research (in the sciences at least) in the US at least is built on the backs of overworked and underpaid (relative to peers with equivalent degrees, who do less work than I do). Is that sustainable? Is it ethical?
Everything I just said related to fields where in grad students are paid for their time. For those in fields where that's not the case --and this is going to sound negative -- how is that even possible? You're going into debt, while delaying the time-frame of actually earning money, without the expectation of a high paying job at the end (a la med school).
That was a bit ramble-y, but I don't have time to fix it, as I have to get back to work at 6pm on a Sunday night. And my boss would be furious if I left.
The very short version of this thread is my attempt to reconcile the following article and two infographics. I'll add a couple of anecdotes at the end, and maybe throw up some questions.
This blog post, by John Skylar, was sent to me by my girlfriend. A Career in Science Will Cost You Your Firstborn
Lifetime earnings increase, more or less, with education level. OK. Sure. Hooray education.
I'm finishing (hopefully) a PhD in Organic Chemistry at a major research university in the US. I always wanted to do science, and I sort of tracked into chemistry because I had a good teacher in highschool, and nothing in college particularly dissuaded me. It's not a passion for me, but it's something I enjoy, and I was at under the impression that, at the end of the day, would pay the bills. Plus I graduated in 2009, and so school seemed like it would probably be a good idea. I applied to the PhD program a few places, got into some of them, and picked my favorite.
A couple of stories: Two years later, I go home, I'm hanging out with some old friends and we're buying pitchers of beer at the bowling alley. They're buying local microbrews, and I'm buying PBR, because that's what I can afford. They went straight into "real" jobs, I stayed in school.
What no one tells you when you enter grad school is that it's HARD. Of the people who entered in my year, 50% were gone within two years. There's a combination of reasons, some people couldn't or wouldn't cut it academically. Some people wanted a real life. That attrition rate is normal, as far as I can tell, but no one bothered to mention it. Statistics exist, I can link them if needed, but for my university, PhD completion rates max out at 50%, even after >7 years. This is fine, I guess, but someone should have told us.
I could go on with more stories, and perhaps I will. There's all kinds of things that annoy me about academia. Here's a big question though: Academic research (in the sciences at least) in the US at least is built on the backs of overworked and underpaid (relative to peers with equivalent degrees, who do less work than I do). Is that sustainable? Is it ethical?
Everything I just said related to fields where in grad students are paid for their time. For those in fields where that's not the case --and this is going to sound negative -- how is that even possible? You're going into debt, while delaying the time-frame of actually earning money, without the expectation of a high paying job at the end (a la med school).
That was a bit ramble-y, but I don't have time to fix it, as I have to get back to work at 6pm on a Sunday night. And my boss would be furious if I left.
VishNub on
0
Posts
Personally I wouldn't go for a higher degree without spending a few years in the actual job market first. Actually most of the stories I hear of people staying in are just people trying to keep their student loans from kicking in, because they weren't able to find a job after their original degree. Which doesn't speak well for their odds after getting it, either.
At least, once you actually get a job. Not a post-doc. That's a glorified unemployment, where you'll be underpaid, have little to no benefits, and no long-term stability. Unfortunately, from what I can see, 3-5 years of post-doc are becoming the norm. University tenure-track positions are becoming rare and exceedingly competitive (100 candidates per opening seem the norm, and the last position I had insider info from the committee on, the final choice was between two excellent candidates, both of whom lost to a third superstar candidate). Government research centres are no longer hiring thanks to austerity policies (thank you baby boomers, yeah we didn't really want careers or scientific advances this generation). And companies are weary of hiring PhDs because they tend to be overqualified and underpaid in most industry positions, which makes them both disgruntled at work and likely to jump ship at the first opportunity.
At least, that's the view I have of the market, from personal contacts and experiences. Interestingly, your graphic seems to indicate the opposite: PhDs have the lowest unemployment rate and the second-highest salary, and $1623/week is definitely not a post-doc salary. So maybe I've just been talking to very unlucky people? I'm having a lot of trouble finding similar statistics to yours for Canada.
Is it sustainable? Yes. There's no shortage of students, and there's a shortage of jobs. Is it ethical? We think it is because it gives you research experience and beefs up your CV to hopefully lead to that good job I mentioned earlier, plus we try to be accommodating of academic pressures (e.g. "I'll miss work this week because I have a big presentation coming up in my class" is an excuse we'll accept but an actual employer in industry won't). But is there a choice? No. Even if I gave my entire research funding to one student, it wouldn't be enough to give them a salary comparable to a full-time career in industry. And with government research funding going steadily down (yay austerity!), things are going to get worse before they get better.
This is how it's possible:
Basically, by creating an unrepayable lending bubble that, once it bursts, will make the housing crash from a few years ago look like the seven years of plenty, and which will disproportionately affect the educated 20 to 40 demographic.
We've discussed misinterpretation of BLS statistics before.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
@VishNub Your link isn't linking to what you thought you linked.
If you (and this is more of a collective "you" to those in the sciences) are starting to feel the pinch (or rather vice-grip) of the seemingly-unnecessary, high-stakes, grad school environment, it is an old (and worse) story for a large amount of folks in the humanities. I can also say anecdotally that of the three science PhD's I know, one is starting a post-doc (and since he comes from Money, is in a comfortable position to cycle into further post docs until finding that dream job), another is experienced/proficient enough in programming/comp sci that he doesnt even need to find a job in what he studied (physics), and the third will likely wind up in post-doc limbo but without the luxury of a Money familial safety-net, so the trend you've outlined certainly seems like A Thing.
I will also say that I'm rather surprised in your institution's faculty not being honest about graduate school - I recall numerous conversations with my undergrad prof.'s about both the stark retention rate for PhD's, and the overall grim picture of grad school both during and afterwards. Otherwise Richy's post probably addresses your OP in a better way than I ever could in this discussion. I could dwell on the woulda-coulda-shoulda status of my own grad degree, but overall I'm actually quite happy that my decision to leave was on my own terms, and was not the result of failing out of the program.
Also kinda hazardous, as far as jobs go. Not awful, but a lot of the chemicals I work with as a biologist are not things I particularly enjoy being around.
Grad students in the humanities say similar things. And they are similarly wrong. No one should have told you that. You should have researched that when you were thinking about applying.
It is sustainable because there is likely a line of people waiting to take your position. It's akin to the situation with adjunct teaching positions. No one wants to take a job as an adjunct, instead of getting a tenure track gig. But people are willing to take the jobs, and the positions cost the university far less than tenture track hires. One of the things you learn in graduate school is that you are replaceable.
Everything you complained about in the OP I have heard from grad students in the humanities. They wished they were paid more. They wished there were more jobs. They wished it consumed less time. etc. While I understand the shittiness that fosters those complaints, I do not understand what these folks thought grad school would be, and why they entered.
You don't go to grad school for a job. You go to grad school to study what you love. And if you end up with a job, that's a happy bit of luck.
Grad school is also psychologically hazardous. Depression, anxiety, alcoholism, drug use, etc. The studies on the topic are all over the place.
Just look at that BLS chart. Even if you just convert all the non-tenure track spots over, that only gets you from 8% to ~16% that get the professorial position 53% want. Until we have 135% college enrollment some part of that 53% is gonna be out of luck. Of course when that happens you'll probably have a similar increase in the number of biology phd students.
med school isn't really the example you want there, if anything the cost/benefit is worse than that phd of yours
This means even stiffer competition for even fewer jobs.
Not a great time to be in academia as a career.
Let's not forget that you still have classes to attend (and homework and projects to do) for at least part of your Ph D time. The time demands on a Ph D candidate are pretty intense.
edit: although I should add that I am in Australia, am 26 and will potentially be done with my PhD at 27 because, you know, Australian PhD system
I don't have a PHD, generally people in my field only get bachelors degrees, but I'd like to explain a phenomenon that illustrates something that I see a lot of that I think is related. As a broad example of what I'm talking about, people in my field don't tend to make more than 35K a year unless they are salaried. That is, once they advance past basic positions they are salaried and then are expected to work far more hours, but without overtime because they are in a salaried position (btw, advancement shouldn't be expected, I've met people in their forties in my field who are working at what are essentially entry level positions, and they are good at their job). Someone making 50 or 60 K is frequently putting in ten or twelve hour days, and in some cases are putting in so many more hours that they would have made more money per hour back when they were hourly even though they are now making more money overall.
What I see everywhere in the job market is a lot of overworked people. I see everyone that makes good money putting in insane amounts of hours to get that money. Pretty much everywhere I look there are a lot of hungry looking people trying as hard as they can to hold onto whatever they have. I see tons of people who are fed up with what they are doing and trying as hard as they can to get a job anywhere else, or doing anything else. I think there are going to be enough people in the looking for work category, even if they aren't all unemployed, that employers can make just about whatever ridiculous demands they want to. That this phenomenon is sustainable for much of the duration of our lifetimes. As long as people need jobs, and there is a decent pool of people looking for work for employers to pick from, they can do what they want.
Well, I think that has to do with people staying in school indefinitely due to the fact they don't actually want to work or repay loans. It's very easy for any sort of recruiter to sell some crazy promises of value, especially in higher learning. You don't get people to attend your program by offering a chance at maybe making slightly above minimum wage when they enter the workforce.
Also,
Boo fucking hoo? You're right, how could someone with no degree ever understand working full time for minimum wage for a whole 3-5 years!
I am terribly sorry you had the opportunity for higher learning, it must be a real burden.
Perspective. It's all perspective.
Ah, self-reported statistics. That explains it
This thing is pretty deceptive.
Why are we using post tax income in California as the baseline for income? Cause it's a state with fairly progressive income tax, and fairly high teacher pay until you figure for COLA. It's possibly the best state in the US to make this argument for.
Why would someone making 250k let themselves sit under 350k of debt at 7% for 20 years. Can't find the extra cash in the meager 106k post tax, post 20 year debt payoff contribution, to chip away at it any faster?
Why are we dealing with income for doctors, and income+benefits+pension for teachers? My friend is a lab tech for a medical college hospital and his health insurance makes most teachers look like walmart cashiers. Doctors don't get 401k match? Same friend gets 6% match as a lab tech.
Why are we using reported hours per week for doctors and '40 hours' for teachers? I doubt the reported hours worked per week for teachers is actually 40.
Also the whole it's just $4 more an hour, conclusion of this fuzzy math. $4 an hour is 13% more.
The RN stuff is even more off base. The average RN makes 58k, so just divide that by 40 and you'll have their hourly wage right? Cause the average RN works no OT. Plus every RN I know did 4 years of school not 2. I also like how we switch from gross income to, net income, if married with 2 kids. Just loading all those deductions in there.