For all of you applying/going to graduate school, please read some of these negative career articles on
PhDs.org. What do you think? Debates about these issues have gone on for decades.
-
Do We Need More Scientists? (
The Public Interest).
-
Is There a Science Crisis? Maybe Not: Leaders warn of a labor shortage in the U.S., but indicators point to an oversupply (
The Chronicle of Higher Education):
So Many Grad Students
Economists and others who track the job market raise a heretical question: Is the United States educating too many scientists and engineers? The surprising answer coming from some quarters is an emphatic yes.
An article published this spring in Today's Engineer stated, "Many practicing engineers disagree with the recommendation to increase the number of U.S. citizens pursuing science and engineering studies and careers."
With wages stagnant and too few jobs for engineers, adding to the work force will only make those careers less attractive, says one of the authors, George F. McClure, a retired aerospace engineer who studies employment issues for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. "The problem is that everybody has focused on the supply side, and very few have focused on the demand side," he says. "People in colleges and universities are concerned with maintaining the pipeline and throughput."
In a case study, Ms. Stephan, the Georgia State economist, has analyzed the growth of the bioinformatics field, generally regarded as one of the hottest areas in science. The number of degree programs blossomed from 21 in 1999 to 74 in 2003.
"There's been a tremendous increase in the number of students in these programs," she says. But, she adds, "we also track job announcements in bioinformatics, and they've been declining."
She sees parallels to other leading fields. "Everybody is talking right now that there'll be lots and lots of jobs in nanotechnology," she says. "I've not seen a convincing case that that is happening, or that it will happen."
[I considered entering both bioinformatics and nanotechnology before concluding they had too few job opportunities.]
Yet graduate schools have an incentive to train ever-increasing numbers of students and postdoctoral fellows because they perform the work on research grants that bring money into universities, Ms. Stephan says. "Academe has a big vested interest here."
Even the National Academy of Sciences, one of the cornerstones of the establishment, has acknowledged the conflicts of interest involved in this issue. "These forecasts of undersupply that did not materialize have led policy makers for graduate training and research support to be highly skeptical of any forecasts and to worry about the self-interest of the forecasters," concluded the academy in a 2000 report.
Harvard's Mr. Freeman argues that academe and the government need to revamp the system. Students and postdocs, especially from foreign countries, make up a corps of "cheap labor," he says. "It runs the system, and it runs it very efficiently, in terms of the taxpayer." He advocates increasing wages for graduate students and postdocs in order to make careers in science and engineering more attractive to domestic students.
Mr. Washington, chair of the National Science Board, agrees that universities could be doing a disservice to graduate students. "There's some kind of personal responsibility that professors and departments should have," he says. "They do have a responsibility to ask the question: Are they generating too many students? Or are they are generating students who haven't got the skills to apply for the jobs that are out there?"
He and others are urging universities to change the way they educate doctoral students. Jobs in academe are scarce, says Mr. Washington, and as graduate students in science grow ever more specialized, the trend does not prepare them well for the job market.
"If someone has a good combination of skills and did a Ph.D. or master's," he says, "they can probably have a much easier time finding a job in industry or government, whereas someone who is a real narrow specialist can't get a job unless they get a job in an academic department. Even then they're not the ideal teacher, because they'll just be creating clones of themselves."
-
Wanted: Really Smart Suckers: Grad school provides exciting new road to poverty (
Village Voice):
Here's an exciting career opportunity you won't see in the classified ads. For the first six to 10 years, it pays less than $20,000 and demands superhuman levels of commitment in a Dickensian environment. Forget about marriage, a mortgage, or even Thanksgiving dinners, as the focus of your entire life narrows to the production, to exacting specifications, of a 300-page document less than a dozen people will read. Then it's time for advancement: Apply to 50 far-flung, undesirable locations, with a 30 to 40 percent chance of being offered any position at all. You may end up living 100 miles from your spouse and commuting to three different work locations a week. You may end up $50,000 in debt, with no health insurance, feeding your kids with food stamps. If you are the luckiest out of every five entrants, you may win the profession's ultimate prize: A comfortable middle-class job, for the rest of your life, with summers off.
Welcome to the world of the humanities Ph.D. student, 2004, where promises mean little and revolt is in the air.
As a former engineer, I think the whole "shortage of engineers" idea is a freakin' myth, partly cooked up by companies to get cheaper labor. The problem, when you actually go apply for an engineering job, may be:
1) Lots of PhDs or MS graduates out there are willing to do what you want to do, with several more years experience.
2) The jobs are arcanely specialized, so little you learn in school may really prepare you for the 3-5 years industry experience everyone seems to want. As an engineer, I barely used ANYTHING I learned in engineering school. (Exception: circuit designers and some other electrical engineering jobs that are similar to certain advanced engineering classes.)
3) Lots of engineers in India, China, Russia, etc. willing to work for 1/2 or 1/3 the cost of an American engineer, on stuff that is the same regardless of location.
4) Projects and products are unstable, dependent on the business climate. If the economy sucks in your specialty or little product niche, layoffs are guaranteed no matter how brilliant students are or your business idea is.
[Case in point---this former hot company here in Silicon Valley, with star employee Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux:
Transmeta -- how a great idea, brilliant minds and big investors equaled a big flop (
San Jose Mercury News).]
5) Working as an engineer may be a lot LESS CREATIVE than being an engineering student. It can be extremely repetitive or narrow. Every engineering student takes a design class, but few are actually hired to do design. Think they'd trust new grads to create the backbone of the company's product? [This is for BS level engineers.]

You know, I heard nowadays Pharmacist do NEED a ph.D in order to work in a pharmacy. They are increasing the level of education here. Whereas, 10 years ago, all you need is a B.S. degree being a pharmacist. Crazy world. Somehow, I feel like we are in downward mobility.
When I was a Graphic Designer, for one job available there are 300 applicants!!! Real crazy!! 10-20 years ago, a graphic designer would need a degree to work in a field. Now, because of the computer revolution, even a secretary can now claimed herself as a graphic designer. *shakes head* Totally crazy!! Why not hire someone who can cost you double or triple the money, if they can train their secretary doing the same thing you do? The vast of computer use...puts a lot of grahpic designers OUT of job. Many are laid offs.