3 ms·

You can't. There are academic jobs for fewer than 10% of PhDs. You have to be incredible or lucky. We do know exactly how change this, though. Since it's prob

You can't. There are academic jobs for fewer than 10% of PhDs. You have to be incredible or lucky. We do know exactly how change this, though. Since it's probably not affordable or sensible to triple the number of profs (you can't do this without making profs much worse), the only way to increase the chances of the average PhD is to graduate fewer PhDs. Back in the mid-20th century only 10-15% of people even got undergrad degrees and we did not have this problem so much.

analog31 11y ago
That's right. But I wonder if increasing the chances for the average PhD by rationing the degree is actually a desirable goal. Disclaimer: I'm a PhD, and have spent my career in industry. My dad did likewise, and my grandfather had a consulting business. I was no threat to anybody's professorial aspirations, and I was in grad school because I just wanted to have the education. Should I have been kicked out, to make way for more worthy students? Also, limiting the degree could backfire, because it could end up driving away the best students along with the worst, while attracting mediocre students who figure out how to play the game. I would certainly welcome some reforms to graduate education, but I don't think that the PhD degree can be turned into a guaranteed career path.
- robotresearcher 11y ago
  > Also, limiting the degree could backfire, because it could end up driving away the best students along with the worst, while attracting mediocre students who figure out how to play the game. Maybe. Does the astronaut program drive away the best and attract mediocre people? I'm being extreme to make a point. I don't think high standards drives away the best people. > Should I have been kicked out, to make way for more worthy students? I don't understand the point. You competed with others for your spot, right? If that was working properly, the more worthy would have taken your spot. Sounds like you made the cut. I think we'd agree that the problem is in expectations of students going in. I agree with others in this thread that profs have a duty to help people make realistic decisions. And as long as some subjects are set up to rely on a badly-paid middle class of postdocs, they are missing the incentive to do so. In AI and robotics right now, it's very hard indeed to get a good postdoc since their opportunities are so good. I'm a prof and I'd love to exploit some but they all make more money than me. Good institutions are routinely hiring AI people straight out of PhDs. The problems we are talking about vary enormously by field because the supply and demand are wildly out of whack in some fields.
  - analog31 11y ago
    You make a good point. I'm guessing that a lot depends on the nature of the standards, how, and when they are applied. I made the cut, but to reduce the number of PhDs by (say) a factor of three, I might have been cut at some point. That could have been at the entrance to grad school, or somewhere else down the line, up to being told not to bother submitting my dissertation. One idea is for funding agencies to set a minimum salary for post-docs, say $100k/y. Doing so would automatically change the number of post-docs and the standards for hiring them, while letting those of us with no academic career aspirations do our own thing. I suppose that supports your point. ;-) In AI and robotics right now, it's very hard indeed to get a good postdoc since their opportunities are so good. Maybe that's the solution. It means that the people you're training actually have realistic career options, and you don't have to create an artificial job market for them.

analog31 11y ago

That's right. But I wonder if increasing the chances for the average PhD by rationing the degree is actually a desirable goal. Disclaimer: I'm a PhD, and have spent my career in industry. My dad did likewise, and my grandfather had a consulting business. I was no threat to anybody's professorial aspirations, and I was in grad school because I just wanted to have the education. Should I have been kicked out, to make way for more worthy students? Also, limiting the degree could backfire, because it could end up driving away the best students along with the worst, while attracting mediocre students who figure out how to play the game. I would certainly welcome some reforms to graduate education, but I don't think that the PhD degree can be turned into a guaranteed career path.

robotresearcher 11y ago
> Also, limiting the degree could backfire, because it could end up driving away the best students along with the worst, while attracting mediocre students who figure out how to play the game. Maybe. Does the astronaut program drive away the best and attract mediocre people? I'm being extreme to make a point. I don't think high standards drives away the best people. > Should I have been kicked out, to make way for more worthy students? I don't understand the point. You competed with others for your spot, right? If that was working properly, the more worthy would have taken your spot. Sounds like you made the cut. I think we'd agree that the problem is in expectations of students going in. I agree with others in this thread that profs have a duty to help people make realistic decisions. And as long as some subjects are set up to rely on a badly-paid middle class of postdocs, they are missing the incentive to do so. In AI and robotics right now, it's very hard indeed to get a good postdoc since their opportunities are so good. I'm a prof and I'd love to exploit some but they all make more money than me. Good institutions are routinely hiring AI people straight out of PhDs. The problems we are talking about vary enormously by field because the supply and demand are wildly out of whack in some fields.
- analog31 11y ago
  You make a good point. I'm guessing that a lot depends on the nature of the standards, how, and when they are applied. I made the cut, but to reduce the number of PhDs by (say) a factor of three, I might have been cut at some point. That could have been at the entrance to grad school, or somewhere else down the line, up to being told not to bother submitting my dissertation. One idea is for funding agencies to set a minimum salary for post-docs, say $100k/y. Doing so would automatically change the number of post-docs and the standards for hiring them, while letting those of us with no academic career aspirations do our own thing. I suppose that supports your point. ;-) In AI and robotics right now, it's very hard indeed to get a good postdoc since their opportunities are so good. Maybe that's the solution. It means that the people you're training actually have realistic career options, and you don't have to create an artificial job market for them.