PhD Graduates Far Exceed Academic Job Openings (nature.com) 51
The number of doctoral graduates globally has grown steadily over recent decades, creating a massive imbalance between PhD holders and available academic positions. Among the 38 OECD countries, new doctorate holders almost doubled between 1998 and 2017.
China's doctoral enrollment has exploded from around 300,000 students in 2013 to more than 600,000 in 2023. This growth has forced PhD graduates into non-academic careers at unprecedented rates. A 2023 study of more than 4,500 PhD graduates in the United Kingdom found over two-thirds were employed outside academia.
In South Africa, 18% of more than 6,000 PhD graduates reported difficulty finding jobs related to their expertise. Some countries have begun adapting their doctoral programs. Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom now offer training and paid internships during doctoral studies, including "industrial PhD" programs where students conduct research in collaboration with companies.
China's doctoral enrollment has exploded from around 300,000 students in 2013 to more than 600,000 in 2023. This growth has forced PhD graduates into non-academic careers at unprecedented rates. A 2023 study of more than 4,500 PhD graduates in the United Kingdom found over two-thirds were employed outside academia.
In South Africa, 18% of more than 6,000 PhD graduates reported difficulty finding jobs related to their expertise. Some countries have begun adapting their doctoral programs. Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom now offer training and paid internships during doctoral studies, including "industrial PhD" programs where students conduct research in collaboration with companies.
Excess Ph'Ds (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Excess Ph'Ds (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that artistic welders could get jobs. They'd not be as artistic as they'd like, but they'd be welding.
Also, I wonder how many of these degrees are all that valid. I don't want to point fingers, but some parts of the globe have a reputation for less than ideal academic scruples.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I may be out of touch, but the general idea (back when I was working on my Ph.D.) was that if you were paying for grad school you were doing it wrong.
The thinking was that if you had the skills and grades, you'd be able to find funding for your graduate education. (You may still need to pay for living expenses, and that sort of stuff.) I had the grades/background to get scholarships, and much of my research was sponsored.
I suppose that's no longer true.
But, yeah, the idea was that if you had to pay for grad
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, when my oldest was in graduate school his tuition was fully covered and the university got him a part-time job as a teaching assistant to cover his living expenses.
My daughter definitely had to pay for her DDS, though, and it wasn't cheap. Still, she was able to pay it off easily once she started working.
Re: (Score:2)
That was similar, though school-provided jobs were paying less than I could otherwise earn. I did some TA work but not as much as some folk did. I'd also taken a bit of a break and was then married, meaning I had to work pretty hard to cover those living expenses. Fortunately, I had other skills (willingness to work) and could work around my schedule. The then-wife worked when she was able/willing. It was expensive to live in the Greater-Boston area.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reminded of Archaeology grad students. I'm convinced they get the worst treatment.
They are quite literally started off by shoveling dirt. Well, that's if they don't start by sifting dirt, but that's usually a volunteer task on a popular dig site.
Over their scholastic career, they'll shovel literal tons of dirt. They'll do more of that after they graduate but at least they have grad students to work down to the good stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It definitely depends on the degree.
I've found that computer science Ph.D. graduates often aren't that great at software development. They know the theory and can write papers, but turning theory into solid working code is more of a trade skill than an academic one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My got an engineering degree. It was *not* more practical than my own computer science degree.
School is at heart, academic. Is it any surprise that schools focus on...academics? Trade schools, on the other hand, are focused on job skills. That's where you go if you want to actually learn a trade.
Every great software developer I've worked with, was self-taught, including the ones that went to college.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the PhDs I've known are in the private sector, doing basic research for companies.
PhDs don't have to work in academia while still being able to use their degrees.
Re: Excess Ph'Ds (Score:2)
Great point. I did a PhD mid-career a few years ago. I never had any intention of going into academia, I can hardly think of anything worse.
I've since found that, because I already had proven practical skills, it has opened a lot of doors for people wanting consulting/contracting work in my field and let me span out into other research-adjacent jobs for really interesting organisations that would have been closed to me before.
I got a full scholarship so overall a no-brainer for me.
and that 500K student loan can be come hopeless wi (Score:2)
and that 500K student loan can be come hopeless with no bankruptcy
Re: (Score:3)
Bankruptcy may not be an option, but You can emigrate to get out of the student loan, but don't ever plan on: working for a US-based company abroad, having any US assets, relying on your US credit score, or collecting social security without it being garnished.
So if you plan to do this, you need to stay out of the US and never come back.
It has been done. See here:
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-millennial-with-student-debt-hasnt-made-payments-moved-abroad-2023-4
Re: (Score:2)
Which means the loan was a bad investment by the lender in the first place. Somehow with student loans, we've separated risk of default from the lending equation, turning student loans into the equivalent of the subprime lending crisis of 2008.
college for all / you must to go to college put us (Score:3)
college for all / you must to go to college put us on this path.
We need less college and more trades.
That doesn't work. (Score:2)
I can tell you that when I was dirt poor I wasn't calling a plumber. I would jury rig it myself. Badly, and with great difficulty and the help of multiple friends who were also doing a half assed job, but the plumber didn't get the money.
The way our economy has functioned is that we have a large number of ultra high productivity individuals functioning as consumers and keeping the whole mess going.
You train everybody to be plumbers and general contractor
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to employ all those tradesmen?
There are millions of unfilled skilled trade jobs in the US. And for every five workers retiring from such jobs, only two are entering those professions.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you might as well commit suicide the to avoid the Christmas rush. Seriously, there's no hope for you to ever amount to anything, so what's the point in living? The only favor you can possibly do humanity is to not exist.
I think we found Joni Ernst's A.C. account. I imagine if I ever met that nihilistic knave, i would be using the same words.
Re: (Score:2)
Or should we all just sit around complaining about declining buggy whip sales?
And whining for government handouts. Don't forget that part.
Re: (Score:1)
We just bought a house in May. It needs some work before we move in.
So far, we've put $50K into it. I think we're going to get close to $100K before we're done.
So I'm certainly doing MY part to employ those tradesmen!
Re: (Score:2)
That need jobs done, you know in the real world, if you have no tradespeople then they become very expensive, housing becomes very expensive, rent becomes very expensive, roads become very expensive, etc.
If you don't have tradespeople then society falls apart, if there are no gender studies, historians etc, the world goes on.
Federal Jobs Guarantee (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The private sector is doing the job. That's where people with PhDs are ending up. It's right there in the summary.
Re: (Score:3)
Son, this is the internet. We don't read things, we only comment.
K... (Score:2)
Five of my friends have PhDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely none of them got their PhDs with a goal to get a job in academia. They all work in private sector now, either in R&D or as specialists.
Foreign students? (Score:1)
I always thought most Masters and PhD's were foreign students intending on returning home after they graduate. Other nations value those degrees relative to 4-year-degree much more than the USA does, for good or bad.
Big degrees are a status symbol and corporate bragging point in many countries. "We have more PhD's than our competitor" works as a selling point in business-to-business transactions.
US companies generally see them as overqualified for the actual positions they have available, meaning they'd hav
Re: (Score:1)
heading implication (Score:4, Insightful)
Long time coming (Score:4, Insightful)
The game now really has to be, don't get one unless you have a specific target in mind - definitely title and industry, preferably a specific company you've talked to. You have to recognize the risk and have backup plans.
Basically, do not just keep getting degrees because you are avoiding the real world/really like school/whatever. Maybe a masters, depending on industry.
And being a professor is increasingly a shitty job (from a pretty great starting point, to be sure). Average salary hasn't gone up since the 1970s. (Seriously, look it up.) Culture war bullshit is poisoning the academy, and the MBA-infested administration has decided to replace you with adjuncts who don't even get minimum wage (from that pool of doomed Ph.Ds, remember the big about them working against student interests?). Outside a few schools, it just isn't a good job any more and will keep getting worse.
We are destroying our schools from multiple angles, and seeking work in a declining industry is a very risky bet. There will be something on the other side, but that might take a while and who knows the relevance of your particular Ph.D then.
All advice from a college dropout, salt to-taste.
Re: (Score:3)
And being a professor is increasingly a shitty job (from a pretty great starting point, to be sure). Average salary hasn't gone up since the 1970s. (Seriously, look it up.)
Not true of STEM - where I work (although I'm staff not faculty). Our faculty have darn good salaries. But PhD's in STEM industry pay absurdly well, too.
Re: (Score:2)
You can do the math yourself if you like (data here [ed.gov], just adjust for inflation), or just read someone else's summary [lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I've always figured it was mostly to do with what sorts of salaries they could command "on the outside". High-powered lawyers, highly-trained engineers at one end... and then again, you also have Art History PhDs.
I'm not saying faculty are any more mercenary than the rest of us... and I know several idealistic STEM professors who are truly dedicated to teaching. But, even for an idealist, it's hard to ignore the salary discrepancy when it gets to a certain point - especially if you have a family.
Absolute Salary not Relative (Score:2)
But, even for an idealist, it's hard to ignore the salary discrepancy when it gets to a certain point - especially if you have a family.
It's not the discrepancy between academic and industry salaries that matters, it's the absolute value of that salary. That's why I ended up in Canada instead of the UK as an academic - UK academic salaries are not enough to be able to afford a house and support a family on, Canadian ones are. I don't really care what I might have been able to earn in industry because I enjoy my job as an academic too much to want to work in industry. However, I have to have a job that earns enough to afford a house and sup
Re: (Score:2)
Because old professors never die.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Close but not Quite There (Score:2)
Surplus PhD's (Score:3)
Not everyone who is awarded a a PhD is going to get a professorship position at a university for a number of reasons. Some of them just aren't cut out for a professorship, others don't think the university will pay them enough, others got a PhD in something which is not of significant value, or doesn't have very many job openings.
For those PhD's going in to the commercial sector in a narrow field of study, this will end up pushing the Master's degree holders into Bachelors degree positions, and it will be harder for Bachelor's degree holders to be employed. Employers would consider a more advanced degree over a bachelors if the asking salaries are similar, and it's an employers job market.
Wonders (Score:2)
The Big Crunch by David Goodstein (1994) (Score:3)
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org] ... ...
"The period 1950-1970 was a true golden age for American science. Young Ph.D's could choose among excellent jobs, and anyone with a decent scientific idea could be sure of getting funds to pursue it. The impressive successes of scientific projects during the Second World War had paved the way for the federal government to assume responsibility for the support of basic research. Moreover, much of the rest of the world was still crippled by the after-effects of the war. At the same time, the G.I. Bill of Rights sent a whole generation back to college transforming the United States from a nation of elite higher education to a nation of mass higher education.
By now, in the 1990's, the situation has changed dramatically. With the Cold War over, National Security is rapidly losing its appeal as a means of generating support for scientific research. There are those who argue that research is essential for our economic future, but the managers of the economy know better. The great corporations have decided that central research laboratories were not such a good idea after all. Many of the national laboratories have lost their missions and have not found new ones. The economy has gradually transformed from manufacturing to service, and service industries like banking and insurance don't support much scientific research. To make matters worse, the country is almost 5 trillion dollars in debt, and scientific research is among the few items of discretionary spending left in the national budget. There is much wringing of hands about impending shortages of trained scientific talent to ensure the Nation's future competitiveness, especially since by now other countries have been restored to economic and scientific vigor, but in fact, jobs are scarce for recent graduates. Finally, it should be clear by now that with more than half the kids in America already going to college, academic expansion is finished forever.
Actually, during the period since 1970, the expansion of American science has not stopped altogether. Federal funding of scientific research, in inflation-corrected dollars, doubled during that period, and by no coincidence at all, the number of academic researchers has also doubled. Such a controlled rate of growth (controlled only by the available funding, to be sure) is not, however, consistent with the lifestyle that academic researchers have evolved. The average American professor in a research university turns out about 15 Ph.D students in the course of a career. In a stable, steady-state world of science, only one of those 15 can go on to become another professor in a research university. In a steady-state world, it is mathematically obvious that the professor's only reproductive role is to produce one professor for the next generation. But the American Ph.D is basically training to become a research professor. It didn't take long for American students to catch on to what was happening. The number of the best American students who decided to go to graduate school started to decline around 1970, and it has been declining ever since.
Let me finish by summarizing what I've been trying to tell you. We stand at an historic juncture in the history of science. The long era of exponential expansion ended decades ago, but we have not yet reconciled ourselves to that fact. The present social structure of science, by which I mean institutions, education, funding, publications and so on all evolved during the period of exponential expansion, before The Big Crunch. They are not suited to the unknown future we face. Today's scientific leaders, in the universities, government, industry and the scientific societies are mostly people who came of age during the golden era, 1950 - 1970. I am myself part of that generation. We think those were normal times and expect them to return. But we are wrong. Nothing like it will ever happen again. It is by no means certain that science will even survive, much less flourish, in the difficult times we face. Before it can survive, those of us who have gained so much from the era of scientific elites and scientific illiterates must learn to face reality, and admit that those days are gone forever. I think we have our work cut out for us."
Just maybe... (Score:2)