In his 1945 seminal report, Science The Endless Frontier, presidential science advisor Vannevar Bush laid out the blueprint for R&D in post-war America: “New knowledge can be obtained only through basic scientific research” conducted in universities and research labs, which is then applied to develop new products by the private sector and new and improved weapons by the defense sector. The report was quite influential and led to the considerable expansion of university research, much of it supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Heath (NIH) and other US federal agencies.
A number of large industrial companies also embraced these recommendations, and launched or expanded corporate research labs, such as ATT’s Bell Labs, GE Research, Xerox PARC and IBM Research. Their job was to push the frontiers of knowledge by conducting both basic and applied research, which would hopefully lead to innovative technologies and products.
A doctoral degree or PhD has long been a key requirement for most research positions, whether in universities, or corporate and government labs. Thus, since the post-war expansion of research, the number of PhDs has been steadily rising. NSF data shows that the number of PhD recipients per year from US universities has more than quintupled, - from under 10,000 in 1958 to almost 55,000 in 2017. Over three quarter of the degrees awarded in 2017 were in STEM disciplines: 23% in Life Sciences, 18% in Engineering, 17% in Social Sciences, 11% in Physical Sciences, and 7% in Math and Computer Sciences. Beyond STEM, 10% of 2017 PhDs were in the Humanities and Arts, 9% in Education, and 5% in various other disciplines.
Data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows the value of a PhD education. According to 2017 BLS data, recipients of doctoral degrees had among the lowest unemployment rates at 1.5%, compared with 2.2% of those with master’s degrees, 2.5% with bachelor degrees and an overall unemployment rate of 3.6%. Holders of doctoral degrees were also among the best paid, with weekly median earnings of $1,743, slightly below holders of professional degrees, - e.g. physicians, dentists, lawyers, - at $1,836, and higher than the $1,401 for master’s degrees and $1,173 for bachelor’s.
Given these positive figures, one would expect near universal agreement on the value of obtaining a PhD. But, in fact, this is not the case. A number of recent articles have been questioning whether a PhD is worth it. Let’s take a closer look at their arguments.
It typically takes 7 to 9 years to get a PhD, - often longer in the humanities and education. In the first few years, students take courses similar to those required for a master’s. They then have to prepare for a rigorous qualifying examination. Those who pass go on to work on original research projects, which they will write about in a dissertation and publish in academic paper.
The key criticism of the PhD process is that it’s been primarily designed to prepare students for tenure-track academic positions. The problem is that for the past 10-20 years, there have been fewer openings for tenured academic positions for two main reasons. In 1986 US federal laws prohibited mandatory age retirements in higher education, so tenured professors have been staying in their jobs for a longer number of years. And, federal funding for academic research has been decreasing, thus significantly reducing the creation of new tenured-track positions. As this 2013 article notes, “only 12.8% of PhD graduates can attain academic positions in the USA… the system in many places is saturated, far beyond capacity to absorb new PhDs in academia at the rates that they are being produced.”
After citing similar negative statistics, “you would think that this kind of information, which has already been discussed in many news articles and books over the years, would dissuade universities from admitting more students,” notes The Ever-Tightening Job Market for Ph.Ds in The Atlantic. “You might even think that super-smart students would try their hands at other careers… Why hasn’t all this information helped winnow down the ranks of aspiring professors - why hasn’t it proved to be an effective Ph.D. prophylactic?… Are graduate programs failing to inform their students about the realities of the job market?”
In fact, there’s no consensus on whether a problem actually exists. Other articles, such as 'Employment crisis' for new PhDs is an illusion in Science, reached a totally different conclusion. “Dig deeper into the available data and you’ll discover that almost all of those new Ph.D.s are gainfully employed.” The aforementioned BLS data clearly shows that PhDs are well employed and well paid.
But, given the considerable investment of time and effort their degree required, do PhD recipients think it was worth it, even if it didn’t lead to an academic position? A recently published article on the non-academic employability of life science PhDs found that “A majority (82%) of professionals (PhD graduates and completed postdoctoral fellows) considered that their PhD helped secure their first position. Also, most professionals responded that their PhD contributed to their ability to perform at work, and that having a PhD increases their long-term potential for advancement in their chosen field.” Overall, 82% said that they were happy that they pursued a PhD. A number of other studies and articles have reached similar conclusions.
In 2011, the science journal Nature published a special issue on The Future of the PhD. Its lead article argued that it was time to rethink the PhD because it was no longer the guaranteed ticket to an academic career it once was. While the increasing number of PhDs around the world has resulted in an extraordinary amount of good research, many PhD programs haven’t adapted to a changing job market. They “remain firmly in the traditional mould - offering an apprenticeship for academic research, even as numbers of academic positions stagnate or decline.” At the same time, there are many good careers outside academia, and most PhDs eventually find satisfying jobs.
The article recommended that it was time “to reform the PhD itself, and reset the expectations of those in the system. Imagine bright young things entering a new kind of science PhD, in which both they and their supervisors embrace from the start the idea that graduates will go on to an array of demanding careers - government, business, non-profit and education — and work towards that goal. The students meet supervisors from a range of disciplines; they acquire management, communication, leadership and other transferable skills alongside traditional academic development of critical thinking and analysis; and they spend six months to a year abroad.”
Let me conclude by briefly discussing my personal experiences with my own PhD. In the 1960s I attended the University of Chicago where I got a master’s and PhD in physics. My degree advisor, Professor Clemens Roothaan, was one of the pioneers in the use of computers in scientific research. When the time came to look for a job, I realized that I enjoyed the computing side of my work more than the physics, made the decision to switch fields, and in 1970 joined the computer science department of IBM’s Thomas J Watson Research Center. At first, I felt a bit guilty about leaving academia for industry, even for a top industrial lab like IBM Research, but the guilt didn’t last long.
Over the course of my long career, I’ve held a number of positions that required management, communications and business skills in addition to STEM skills. In retrospect, the biggest benefit of my excellent University of Chicago education has been less the physics, math, and computer skills I learned, and more the ability to address complex problems, to do so as part of a research team, and to keep acquiring new knowledge throughout my career.
My university education has helped me adapt to changing technologies, markets, and opportunities, - first when I switched from physics to computer sciences; later when job responsibilities required not just technology skills, but also business, management and strategy skill; and after my retirement in 2007, to continue learning as I’ve pursued different activities. In the end, this is the true value of a good education, regardless of whether we received it in a trade school, college, professional school or research university.
Insightful as always Irving. In a world of exponential technologies lifelong learning and the willingness, aptitude and training required to do so is indeed a key determinant for success in a long career. Seems to me that a Phd program skewed towards such a goal has a lot to commend it; regardless of whether the newly minted Dr ends up in the academic world or not.
Posted by: Shanker Ramamurthy | January 28, 2019 at 08:30 AM
Excellent post. I will be sharing with several people. Irving has always been an inspiration and always pushed the envelope around leading edge innovation. Thanks for sharing this.
Posted by: Doug Hunt | January 31, 2019 at 08:17 AM
Irving, this is so on point. I enjoyed reading it. My education has taught me many things but one of the most important things I learned is to understand what I don't know. Your applied research comments realate to that in my mind. It takes collaborative effort to unlock new things.
Posted by: Peter Bobris | February 03, 2019 at 09:31 PM