11 ms·

The bachelor’s to Ph.D. STEM pipeline no longer leaks more women than men

98 points by tomp 11y ago

cup 11y ago
I had a long discussion with my old supervisor last week about the merit of a PhD (in Biology, Physiology, Pharmaceutics and that genre of field) and she mentioned to me that she doesn't recommend students pursue them anymore. It was a sad conversation but not surprising. So many students, myself included, invest such significant portions of their lives pursuing a level of education that statistically won't be useful for them or society. There are no jobs available, funding is drying up and specifically theres an over supply of PhD qualified researchers out there. Thats not to say doing a PhD isn't a bad idea, but from an academic persective there are better alternatives. Especially in the biology field. After the 7-10 years it takes to pursue a PhD one could become a clinical specialist, employed with arguably better working conditions and research prospects.
- rjsw 11y ago
  Is that really new ? The Biology teachers when I was at school were much better than those for other science subjects, the Biology ones had all done research but had gone into teaching as there were few other jobs available.
- ousta 11y ago
  In most of european countries only fools will expect to do a PHD and get money out of it. it is common knowledge that you will gt a PHD, some prestige around it, some students will go private with luck if they work on some employable field such as a PHD thesis on machine learning for instance but most of the other PHDs will end up teachers which isnt the best pay ever in europe. and this is true for the real scientific PHDs. I am not talking about "PHDs" on gender studies, sociology or psychology which is a synonym for "please do not employ me my degree is useless". at the end it is really the subject of your PHD that will decide how much you will make. Even more than the outcome of your thesis...
  - cup 11y ago
    The suggestion that a psychology, sociology or even gender studies PhD is useless reeks of ignorance. A serious body of academic work, no matter what It's field, is important for the advancement of our society, no matter how gradual. The maxim that no one goes into a PhD to get rich is true, but at the same time, no one goes into a PhD to be unemployed or to become a teacher. Theres no reason to invest a decade doing primary research when an undergraduate with a masters in teaching will suffice.
    - mahouse 11y ago
      Are you seriously suggesting that psychology is not a pseudoscience, or that "gender studies" is something at all?
      - omegaham 11y ago
        I think that you could do some perfectly good science in both fields. Now, as to whether good science is being done in those fields, I'm not qualified to say.
    - ousta 11y ago
      I meant "employability" of the PHD is useless. and I do not agree with any body of academic work being 'important for the advancement of our society'. looking decades back and now i can guarantee you that a lot of bodies of academic work contributed to make our society regress rather than advance. Computer science is even one example of this, where litterally some guys spend two years of PHD to look where to put a "next button" on a UI. I know many people that did a PHD on the sole basis to become a teacher as this was the best they could aim for in terms of pay/benefits.
      - cup 11y ago
        Do you have the thesis or publications of their findings. I'd be interested to see what they discovered after two years.
      - cfallin 11y ago
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Yeah, there's not many jobs in biology, and funding is pretty bad in the public sector. Biotech is a rocket ship in the early phase of blastoff, though. Jobs are still ultra-competitive to get, but there's plenty of cash to go around for the actual projects(since employees are plentiful and disposable). Plenty of people in the biotech industry just have a bachelors. There's still some holdovers from academia who insist that PhDs have to be the ones making the science decisions, but it's still not as ossified as academia.
  - tertius 11y ago
    "making the science decisions" If you want your tech (in biotech) to be novel, then yes you need people with experience who can imagine solutions to problems.
danieltillett 11y ago
The reason is more men are leaking. Unless you think this a good thing then this is not progress. We would not think we are making progress in equalising gender differences in life expectancy by bumping off little old ladies.
- tomp 11y ago
  Why would "more PhDs" equate with "more progress"? Maybe the people purposefully avoid PhDs, because they don't consider them valuable enough?
  - copsarebastards 11y ago
    I think that's true; many people do avoid Ph.D.s because they aren't a good investment. Whether or not that's progress depends on your goals: if you just care about more people having more money, then sure, more Ph.D.s doesn't equal more progress in the short run. But at least in the US, there's a huge problem that the problems we have that can be solved are increasingly technical, requiring more and more education. Meanwhile, the incentives we're providing incentivize not getting more education. If we're going to continue the charade that capitalism is meritocratic, we need to align the incentives with the needs of our culture and economy, or the results will be disastrous.
    - cinquemb 11y ago
      >But at least in the US, there's a huge problem that the problems we have that can be solved are increasingly technical… I would have to agree with this statement. >…requiring more and more education. I disagree with this statement if it means dealing with the BS that entails submitting oneself to the pipeline in order work on research. >Meanwhile, the incentives we're providing incentivize not getting more education. Oddly, I think this still holds true despite my disagreement with the above (if education == submitting oneself to the pipeline in order work on research). For myself, I write software for mobile devices and eeg hardware for research and data analysis in a neuro lab and have to consult with other labs around the world who want to do experiments and don't have those capabilities in house, without having a degree of any sort. Occasionally this involves reading papers from topics like DSP, EM, comp geometry, and neuroimaging on top of software/hardware documentation for use in such software. The post-docs and phd students I see are increasingly becoming inept when it comes to even conducting experiments and has lead to gross inefficiencies as more and more things require not only basic knowledge of computing and systems but other fields they are simply not exposed to on a practical degree. Even worse, there seems to be this expectation that they don't have to pursue/learn or do such things (probably because it wasn't covered in their syllabi and they wont receive a grade for it…), though I see a lot of superficial efforts at trying address such. I think as long as the dynamics continue as they are in academia, they will allow for opportunity for those who have skills sans degrees (not signals of skills) to find work that is meaningful for them and possibly society… that will bought and paid for those who willingly submit themselves to the usual pipeline (at increasing expense).
cryoshon 11y ago
I've discussed this in the past, but the basic reasoning here is that more and more people ("men" are singled out for this article but it's irrelevant) are leaving academia and not looking back, along with rising populations of people opting to not enter academia in the first place. Science offers a shitty value proposition: spend your youth in the laboratory for poverty-wages, then your late youth doing the same for poor wages, then your middle age doing the same for poor wages, then maybe you become a professor and make average to decent wages. Sure, science is interesting, and for a certain kind of personality (mine, for instance) the bullshit can be tolerated, for a time. Some people can tolerate it forever because tolerating bullshit means they get to research something that is intensely interesting to them. But everyone sees the writing on the wall-- science is not a path to a healthy middle class lifestyle for the current generation, and wasn't for the previous generation of scientists either. In fact, I reckon you'd have to go back to the boomers if you want to see people who really had a good thing going in the scientific establishment. There is no opportunity to "hit it out of the park" and somehow come back with a windfall.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  I'd like to note agreement and support of this perspective. Personal anecdote to follow. At a Top 60 World Ranked Research University, I have seen first-hand the students / Post-Docs dealing with a critical lack of jobs or opportunities within academic research. Not to belabor my overall vitriol toward the Boomer generation regarding their behaviors in the market (e.g. "Get all I can, screw those behind me"), but those who have 'made it' and are decision makers now have changed the dynamics to reflect more of a cut-throat, race-to-the-bottom labor pool perspective. That doesn't even factor in the 'IP creep' of interests outside of science trying to get a piece of the action these days. The most telling example? A person working in a good lab (good publication record, pretty well funded) was a PhD Post Doc from the institution where they were working in the lab. Due to cutbacks, the Chair told the PI that costs needed to be cut, which meant 1 employee had to go elsewhere. Rather than suggest the last-hired employee be the one, the Chair pointed to the PhD Post Doc and said: "Just fire her and get an H1-B." I trust my sources and do know the context of the conversation / lab's outlook. It was pretty stunning to me though. Go to great university, get PhD, put in effort and be on papers as a Post Doc, then kicked to the curb for an H1-B on a purely fiscal basis. That's some hot garbage right there. I'm glad to note that the Post Doc in this story has left bench science and is now a full time professor elsewhere, where she is appreciated much more. And, without hesitation, she steers talented science minds away from research as a career.
lambda 11y ago
Hmm. Some interesting data, but it doesn't really cover anything like the full "pipeline", which goes past the PhD to postdocs and then to faculty positions. And of course, that's only covering academic exits, while going into industry is another avenue, and there has been no analysis of whether the pipeline from bachelors to industry has been leaky in STEM fields. Now, hitting a cap on the percentage of people entering the "pipeline" does mean that there's only so much effect that the "leaky pipeline" could have. The self-selection that happens even upon entering a bachelor's program is a pretty large factor, which needs to be studied; is it due to differences at the high school level? Difference in perceived job prospects, perhaps due to problems further down the pipeline like postdoc and tenure positions? Even if the pipeline is only getting a small percentage of women up front, it's possible that feedback from further down the line is what is causing that disparity. Anyhow, it is good to have some concrete numbers on at least this portion of the pipeline, to inform where efforts should be spent. It sounds like the bachelors to PhD portion was fairly leaky in the past, so efforts to improve that have helped, but now effort would be better spent on looking at other aspects of the system.
kelukelugames 11y ago
Proud STEM PhD drop out from MIT reporting in. Aside from a few who went into consulting or banking, I make way more as a code monkey than those who stayed to finish.
- ska 11y ago
  And if that's how you are measuring "success", then you obviously made the right choice for you. Don't get me wrong, I left academia (albeit further on) and think there are lots of sensible reasons to leave. However if the relatively low pay is either a) a surprise to you or b) a known problem for you when entering a PhD program - then you just didn't do your homework and probably shouldn't have entered the program. Of course sometimes it takes a while to work this out for yourself. With a few very specific exceptions, entering a PhD program for the money is inept.
  - kelukelugames 11y ago
    It's one thing to do your homework and another to be eat ramen when you are 25 years old.
    - arcanus 11y ago
      not really -- ska point was that graduate school in STEM is transparently not about maximizing your salary potential. He is completely correct. I went to a USNEWS top-25 undergraduate program, and had offers at consulting firms, ibanks and science phd programs. My top-10 USNEWS phd program was quite open about a 22k-30k salary for the duration of your phd. The substitution effect had I chosen another route (back of the envelope) was a few 100k in lost earnings. No one does science (in particular, a phd) for the money, because these are smart, academically accomplished individuals who could find more profitable work elsewhere.
      - kyzyl 11y ago
        I mostly agree, but I interpret kelukelugames's comment as saying that it's one thing to do your homework and be aware of what you're getting yourself into, but it's quite another thing to actually be living on ramen in your mid- to late-twenties. That is to say, people--especially your typical 22 y.o. undergrad--probably often overestimate their willingness to fully live the life of a PhD/postdoc, regardless of how much they "aren't in it for the money".
grandinj 11y ago
Isn't it obvious that this is just supply and demand at work? There are now too many people chasing a career in academia, which is driving the price down.
- homulilly 11y ago
  Maybe in part, but that ignores the fact demand for academia has gone down what with all the cuts to science and education. As a society, we value research and knowledge less and less.
  - T-A 11y ago
    http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Agencies_4.jpg http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Agencies_4.jpg
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      Right, now measure on a per-capita basis or on the basis of percentage of GDP. At least it's adjusted for bloody inflation.
      - T-A 11y ago
        So more dollars are cuts if population or GDP grows faster? Does the same principle apply to other quantities too? Let's try a fun one: atmospheric CO2 concentration. From 1980 to 2012, it grew roughly 17% [1]. During the same period, world population grew 57% [2], and gross world product grew 144% [3]. So atmospheric CO2 has been drastically cut? :P [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:AIRS_Carbon_Dioxide_Vertical.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... [2] http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history3.aspx http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history3.aspx [3] http://kushnirs.org/macroeconomics/gdp/gdp_world.html http://kushnirs.org/macroeconomics/gdp/gdp_world.html

98 points by tomp 11y ago

cup 11y ago

I had a long discussion with my old supervisor last week about the merit of a PhD (in Biology, Physiology, Pharmaceutics and that genre of field) and she mentioned to me that she doesn't recommend students pursue them anymore. It was a sad conversation but not surprising. So many students, myself included, invest such significant portions of their lives pursuing a level of education that statistically won't be useful for them or society. There are no jobs available, funding is drying up and specifically theres an over supply of PhD qualified researchers out there. Thats not to say doing a PhD isn't a bad idea, but from an academic persective there are better alternatives. Especially in the biology field. After the 7-10 years it takes to pursue a PhD one could become a clinical specialist, employed with arguably better working conditions and research prospects.

rjsw 11y ago
Is that really new ? The Biology teachers when I was at school were much better than those for other science subjects, the Biology ones had all done research but had gone into teaching as there were few other jobs available.
ousta 11y ago
In most of european countries only fools will expect to do a PHD and get money out of it. it is common knowledge that you will gt a PHD, some prestige around it, some students will go private with luck if they work on some employable field such as a PHD thesis on machine learning for instance but most of the other PHDs will end up teachers which isnt the best pay ever in europe. and this is true for the real scientific PHDs. I am not talking about "PHDs" on gender studies, sociology or psychology which is a synonym for "please do not employ me my degree is useless". at the end it is really the subject of your PHD that will decide how much you will make. Even more than the outcome of your thesis...
- cup 11y ago
  The suggestion that a psychology, sociology or even gender studies PhD is useless reeks of ignorance. A serious body of academic work, no matter what It's field, is important for the advancement of our society, no matter how gradual. The maxim that no one goes into a PhD to get rich is true, but at the same time, no one goes into a PhD to be unemployed or to become a teacher. Theres no reason to invest a decade doing primary research when an undergraduate with a masters in teaching will suffice.
  - mahouse 11y ago
    Are you seriously suggesting that psychology is not a pseudoscience, or that "gender studies" is something at all?
    - omegaham 11y ago
      I think that you could do some perfectly good science in both fields. Now, as to whether good science is being done in those fields, I'm not qualified to say.
  - ousta 11y ago
    I meant "employability" of the PHD is useless. and I do not agree with any body of academic work being 'important for the advancement of our society'. looking decades back and now i can guarantee you that a lot of bodies of academic work contributed to make our society regress rather than advance. Computer science is even one example of this, where litterally some guys spend two years of PHD to look where to put a "next button" on a UI. I know many people that did a PHD on the sole basis to become a teacher as this was the best they could aim for in terms of pay/benefits.
    - cup 11y ago
      Do you have the thesis or publications of their findings. I'd be interested to see what they discovered after two years.
    - cfallin 11y ago
cryoshon 11y ago
Yeah, there's not many jobs in biology, and funding is pretty bad in the public sector. Biotech is a rocket ship in the early phase of blastoff, though. Jobs are still ultra-competitive to get, but there's plenty of cash to go around for the actual projects(since employees are plentiful and disposable). Plenty of people in the biotech industry just have a bachelors. There's still some holdovers from academia who insist that PhDs have to be the ones making the science decisions, but it's still not as ossified as academia.
- tertius 11y ago
  "making the science decisions" If you want your tech (in biotech) to be novel, then yes you need people with experience who can imagine solutions to problems.

danieltillett 11y ago

The reason is more men are leaking. Unless you think this a good thing then this is not progress. We would not think we are making progress in equalising gender differences in life expectancy by bumping off little old ladies.

tomp 11y ago
Why would "more PhDs" equate with "more progress"? Maybe the people purposefully avoid PhDs, because they don't consider them valuable enough?
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  I think that's true; many people do avoid Ph.D.s because they aren't a good investment. Whether or not that's progress depends on your goals: if you just care about more people having more money, then sure, more Ph.D.s doesn't equal more progress in the short run. But at least in the US, there's a huge problem that the problems we have that can be solved are increasingly technical, requiring more and more education. Meanwhile, the incentives we're providing incentivize not getting more education. If we're going to continue the charade that capitalism is meritocratic, we need to align the incentives with the needs of our culture and economy, or the results will be disastrous.
  - cinquemb 11y ago
    >But at least in the US, there's a huge problem that the problems we have that can be solved are increasingly technical… I would have to agree with this statement. >…requiring more and more education. I disagree with this statement if it means dealing with the BS that entails submitting oneself to the pipeline in order work on research. >Meanwhile, the incentives we're providing incentivize not getting more education. Oddly, I think this still holds true despite my disagreement with the above (if education == submitting oneself to the pipeline in order work on research). For myself, I write software for mobile devices and eeg hardware for research and data analysis in a neuro lab and have to consult with other labs around the world who want to do experiments and don't have those capabilities in house, without having a degree of any sort. Occasionally this involves reading papers from topics like DSP, EM, comp geometry, and neuroimaging on top of software/hardware documentation for use in such software. The post-docs and phd students I see are increasingly becoming inept when it comes to even conducting experiments and has lead to gross inefficiencies as more and more things require not only basic knowledge of computing and systems but other fields they are simply not exposed to on a practical degree. Even worse, there seems to be this expectation that they don't have to pursue/learn or do such things (probably because it wasn't covered in their syllabi and they wont receive a grade for it…), though I see a lot of superficial efforts at trying address such. I think as long as the dynamics continue as they are in academia, they will allow for opportunity for those who have skills sans degrees (not signals of skills) to find work that is meaningful for them and possibly society… that will bought and paid for those who willingly submit themselves to the usual pipeline (at increasing expense).

cryoshon 11y ago

I've discussed this in the past, but the basic reasoning here is that more and more people ("men" are singled out for this article but it's irrelevant) are leaving academia and not looking back, along with rising populations of people opting to not enter academia in the first place. Science offers a shitty value proposition: spend your youth in the laboratory for poverty-wages, then your late youth doing the same for poor wages, then your middle age doing the same for poor wages, then maybe you become a professor and make average to decent wages. Sure, science is interesting, and for a certain kind of personality (mine, for instance) the bullshit can be tolerated, for a time. Some people can tolerate it forever because tolerating bullshit means they get to research something that is intensely interesting to them. But everyone sees the writing on the wall-- science is not a path to a healthy middle class lifestyle for the current generation, and wasn't for the previous generation of scientists either. In fact, I reckon you'd have to go back to the boomers if you want to see people who really had a good thing going in the scientific establishment. There is no opportunity to "hit it out of the park" and somehow come back with a windfall.

6stringmerc 11y ago
I'd like to note agreement and support of this perspective. Personal anecdote to follow. At a Top 60 World Ranked Research University, I have seen first-hand the students / Post-Docs dealing with a critical lack of jobs or opportunities within academic research. Not to belabor my overall vitriol toward the Boomer generation regarding their behaviors in the market (e.g. "Get all I can, screw those behind me"), but those who have 'made it' and are decision makers now have changed the dynamics to reflect more of a cut-throat, race-to-the-bottom labor pool perspective. That doesn't even factor in the 'IP creep' of interests outside of science trying to get a piece of the action these days. The most telling example? A person working in a good lab (good publication record, pretty well funded) was a PhD Post Doc from the institution where they were working in the lab. Due to cutbacks, the Chair told the PI that costs needed to be cut, which meant 1 employee had to go elsewhere. Rather than suggest the last-hired employee be the one, the Chair pointed to the PhD Post Doc and said: "Just fire her and get an H1-B." I trust my sources and do know the context of the conversation / lab's outlook. It was pretty stunning to me though. Go to great university, get PhD, put in effort and be on papers as a Post Doc, then kicked to the curb for an H1-B on a purely fiscal basis. That's some hot garbage right there. I'm glad to note that the Post Doc in this story has left bench science and is now a full time professor elsewhere, where she is appreciated much more. And, without hesitation, she steers talented science minds away from research as a career.

lambda 11y ago

Hmm. Some interesting data, but it doesn't really cover anything like the full "pipeline", which goes past the PhD to postdocs and then to faculty positions. And of course, that's only covering academic exits, while going into industry is another avenue, and there has been no analysis of whether the pipeline from bachelors to industry has been leaky in STEM fields. Now, hitting a cap on the percentage of people entering the "pipeline" does mean that there's only so much effect that the "leaky pipeline" could have. The self-selection that happens even upon entering a bachelor's program is a pretty large factor, which needs to be studied; is it due to differences at the high school level? Difference in perceived job prospects, perhaps due to problems further down the pipeline like postdoc and tenure positions? Even if the pipeline is only getting a small percentage of women up front, it's possible that feedback from further down the line is what is causing that disparity. Anyhow, it is good to have some concrete numbers on at least this portion of the pipeline, to inform where efforts should be spent. It sounds like the bachelors to PhD portion was fairly leaky in the past, so efforts to improve that have helped, but now effort would be better spent on looking at other aspects of the system.

kelukelugames 11y ago

Proud STEM PhD drop out from MIT reporting in. Aside from a few who went into consulting or banking, I make way more as a code monkey than those who stayed to finish.

ska 11y ago
And if that's how you are measuring "success", then you obviously made the right choice for you. Don't get me wrong, I left academia (albeit further on) and think there are lots of sensible reasons to leave. However if the relatively low pay is either a) a surprise to you or b) a known problem for you when entering a PhD program - then you just didn't do your homework and probably shouldn't have entered the program. Of course sometimes it takes a while to work this out for yourself. With a few very specific exceptions, entering a PhD program for the money is inept.
- kelukelugames 11y ago
  It's one thing to do your homework and another to be eat ramen when you are 25 years old.
  - arcanus 11y ago
    not really -- ska point was that graduate school in STEM is transparently not about maximizing your salary potential. He is completely correct. I went to a USNEWS top-25 undergraduate program, and had offers at consulting firms, ibanks and science phd programs. My top-10 USNEWS phd program was quite open about a 22k-30k salary for the duration of your phd. The substitution effect had I chosen another route (back of the envelope) was a few 100k in lost earnings. No one does science (in particular, a phd) for the money, because these are smart, academically accomplished individuals who could find more profitable work elsewhere.
    - kyzyl 11y ago
      I mostly agree, but I interpret kelukelugames's comment as saying that it's one thing to do your homework and be aware of what you're getting yourself into, but it's quite another thing to actually be living on ramen in your mid- to late-twenties. That is to say, people--especially your typical 22 y.o. undergrad--probably often overestimate their willingness to fully live the life of a PhD/postdoc, regardless of how much they "aren't in it for the money".

grandinj 11y ago

Isn't it obvious that this is just supply and demand at work? There are now too many people chasing a career in academia, which is driving the price down.

homulilly 11y ago
Maybe in part, but that ignores the fact demand for academia has gone down what with all the cuts to science and education. As a society, we value research and knowledge less and less.
- T-A 11y ago
  http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Agencies_4.jpg http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Agencies_4.jpg
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    Right, now measure on a per-capita basis or on the basis of percentage of GDP. At least it's adjusted for bloody inflation.
    - T-A 11y ago
      So more dollars are cuts if population or GDP grows faster? Does the same principle apply to other quantities too? Let's try a fun one: atmospheric CO2 concentration. From 1980 to 2012, it grew roughly 17% [1]. During the same period, world population grew 57% [2], and gross world product grew 144% [3]. So atmospheric CO2 has been drastically cut? :P [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:AIRS_Carbon_Dioxide_Vertical.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... [2] http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history3.aspx http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history3.aspx [3] http://kushnirs.org/macroeconomics/gdp/gdp_world.html http://kushnirs.org/macroeconomics/gdp/gdp_world.html