6 ms·

I am not a PhD student, but my partner is one (non-science) and I watch this academia issue. You have a lot of people who are really smart but are not math and

I am not a PhD student, but my partner is one (non-science) and I watch this academia issue. You have a lot of people who are really smart but are not math and science oriented. These are people very good at one thing: reading a lot and thinking a lot and writing. Other than law (and we have too many of those, too) what's the best economic use for these people?

loganfrederick 16y ago
Quick response with a couple ideas that popped to mind: Journalist? Political analysts? Given more thought, I'm sure I could come up with more. There's definitely value in critical thinking. Whether PhD programs are the most economically efficient way to use their skills is something I don't know.
- ebiester 16y ago
  Political analysts are often trained by political science. Journalism and freelance writing are both places many end up, but both are also fields where there is more supply than demand.
powellc 16y ago
How about farming? Plenty of really smart, literate people are turning to small farms. Not everything we think needs to be turned into beautiful profit. Sometimes the work we do with our hands is okay for making a living too.
Umalu 16y ago
I think if you're smart and you've earned a PhD from a good program, you've proven you have the ability to dig deep into a subject and figure it out and move the ball forward a bit. This is an economically valuable skill that should be broadly transferable into many fields, even those far afield from your PhD studies. I think the problem arises for PhDs when they refuse to leave their narrow field of specialty. A lucky few can continue to specialize in academia, but for the rest the real world requires them to get a lot more general and interdisciplinary in order to succeed, something I fear a lot of them are unwilling to do. Hence our glut of unhappy PhDs. This is not a new problem.
- flacon 16y ago
  "I think the problem arises for PhDs when they refuse to leave their narrow field of specialty" Amen, we have a friend who spent 12 years getting a PhD in Russian History only to get out and face no job prospects. Depressingly, every year he gets ready for the one History Job fair that happens in January, flies down there and presents himself at interviews. 3 years later he still actually believes that he has a chance at getting a job after being out of the game a while. He has no sense to pivot, no sense that maybe he needs to find a new calling in life and utilize his skills in another fashion. Contrastingly, we knew another PhD in Chemistry from Cornell. He got out and hated academia, but still loved teaching. He decided to teach chem and physics at some fancy prep high school and is doing well for himself. To me these people need to understand that if they can't find their place quickly to scale that pyramid need to find a more general use for their skills. There's perseverance and then theres a false sense of hope.
  - ojbyrne 16y ago
    Except the history of academia and science is rife with people who slaved away for their entire life in their narrow field of specialty, before discovering something that changed the world, and their life. There's no objective test to determine the difference between "failure to pivot" and "changing the world with a little more effort." The guy who developed a proof to Fermat's Last Theorem worked on it for seven years. I suspect people laughed at him, told him he would never succeed, told him he should do other things. After he came up with the solution, he was knighted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27_proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27_proof_of_Fermat%27s_La...
    - nkassis 16y ago
      Here's a documentary about him, it's worth watching: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8269328330690408516# http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8269328330690408516#
    - billswift 16y ago
      There is a big difference between working on something for a long time and, basically, just keeping hoping for a long time. I wonder how many people who have their PhDs and hope for an academic job are really working at improving their abilities in their fields, or even at keeping up.
DenisM 16y ago
>Other than law (and we have too many of those, too) What's wrong with the lawyer profession? Last I checked good corporate lawyers make $300-$500/hour. My inexpensive corporate attorney is somewhere around $250/hour I think. Good divorce laywers are impossible to find, and the ones that are there are spoiled they can afford not to return their clients calls for days and days. There appears to be a serious shortage of those types of lawyers, and it's exactly good fit for the kind of people you described.
- DenisM 16y ago
  Well, maybe I was wrong after all: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/you-know-the-legal-job-market-must-be-bad/68852/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/you-know...
nostrademons 16y ago
Consultancies.
sfard 16y ago
Best economic use you ask? Well the whole point of the Economist article is that in most academic fields there's an incredible oversupply of PhDs. What's the use of a 1,000 houses in a town of 100 people? Here's the source of the problem as I see it. The PhDs I know are largely risk intolerant and stay in academia because it's a comfortable way to pursue their passion. They're used to asking for permission and people evaluating them along very specific guidelines. When they enter the real or corporate world, they're used to this attitude of asking for permission to do things. They expect universities or corporations to find a use for their talent instead of architecting one themselves. So what is their economic use? They need to figure that out. One solution would be to design a system that prepares them better for a world that's a lot more dynamic than their specific area of expertise might be.
- kd0amg 16y ago
  What's the use of a 1,000 houses in a town of 100 people? I don't think we gain much by assuming that a person with a PhD is only good for one thing when trying to find another use for them.
- ebiester 16y ago
  Let me rephrase: What are the best economic uses for highly intelligent, non-technical people, who are very good at sitting down, reading, and synthesizing information from a variety of sources? Most of the jobs that would be suggested are ones like law and journalism, both of whom are highly competitive as well. It's estimated that fewer than 400 people make a living off of fiction, and non-fiction in most cases is a field owned by academics. Further, most auxiliary careers, such as political analysts, draw from academia. So, if this is your top talent, you only have a few options, and other than law, academia actually is one of your best chances to use your top talent. It's a bit like athletics in this society. If you are very strong and very fast, you have a very limited amount of economically viable options for you. The NBA is a long, long shot, but if you are 6'9 and fast, and that is your primary talent, what do you do?
  - tome 16y ago
    It's estimated that fewer than 400 people make a living off of fiction Wow, can you point me to a reference for this statement? I find it remarkable.
light3 16y ago
Write novels or do something related to history?
redthrowaway 16y ago
Think tanks, if the degree is at all applicable.
Tichy 16y ago
Serving hot dogs and fries?
gyardley 16y ago
I left a PhD program in history and ended up working at a series of startups. Eventually, I founded one. My cohort at school, on average, was smarter and harder-working than I was - I'm sure they could do exactly the same thing, if they wanted to. Or, for that matter, they could do anything else they wanted. The issue isn't that there's no economic use for these people. The issue is that there's (close to) no economic use for what they really, really, really want to do.
slee029 16y ago
I think that "one thing" you identify is one of the most important abilities in determining business success. Those who refined their ability to properly communicate, think critically, and analyze problems have built a transferable skill set that cannot afford to be learned at the workplace. So in my opinion, they've got plenty of options. You could easily go the business consulting route where they specifically look for people with those traits and eventually have them specialize in some field. From there you could easily transfer to any industry job you specialize in for a comfortable living. The more ambitious could use those skills to build a startup and surround themselves with the right mix of a math or science backgrounds to create a business.
WalterBright 16y ago
When I was at Caltech, a number of students were interested in Astronomy and majored in it. They were well aware, though, that the chances of getting a job in Astronomy were exceedingly small. So they did the sensible thing - double majored. One was AY and was for fun, the other they expected to be able to get a job in.

loganfrederick 16y ago

Quick response with a couple ideas that popped to mind: Journalist? Political analysts? Given more thought, I'm sure I could come up with more. There's definitely value in critical thinking. Whether PhD programs are the most economically efficient way to use their skills is something I don't know.

ebiester 16y ago
Political analysts are often trained by political science. Journalism and freelance writing are both places many end up, but both are also fields where there is more supply than demand.

powellc 16y ago

How about farming? Plenty of really smart, literate people are turning to small farms. Not everything we think needs to be turned into beautiful profit. Sometimes the work we do with our hands is okay for making a living too.

Umalu 16y ago

I think if you're smart and you've earned a PhD from a good program, you've proven you have the ability to dig deep into a subject and figure it out and move the ball forward a bit. This is an economically valuable skill that should be broadly transferable into many fields, even those far afield from your PhD studies. I think the problem arises for PhDs when they refuse to leave their narrow field of specialty. A lucky few can continue to specialize in academia, but for the rest the real world requires them to get a lot more general and interdisciplinary in order to succeed, something I fear a lot of them are unwilling to do. Hence our glut of unhappy PhDs. This is not a new problem.

flacon 16y ago
"I think the problem arises for PhDs when they refuse to leave their narrow field of specialty" Amen, we have a friend who spent 12 years getting a PhD in Russian History only to get out and face no job prospects. Depressingly, every year he gets ready for the one History Job fair that happens in January, flies down there and presents himself at interviews. 3 years later he still actually believes that he has a chance at getting a job after being out of the game a while. He has no sense to pivot, no sense that maybe he needs to find a new calling in life and utilize his skills in another fashion. Contrastingly, we knew another PhD in Chemistry from Cornell. He got out and hated academia, but still loved teaching. He decided to teach chem and physics at some fancy prep high school and is doing well for himself. To me these people need to understand that if they can't find their place quickly to scale that pyramid need to find a more general use for their skills. There's perseverance and then theres a false sense of hope.
- ojbyrne 16y ago
  Except the history of academia and science is rife with people who slaved away for their entire life in their narrow field of specialty, before discovering something that changed the world, and their life. There's no objective test to determine the difference between "failure to pivot" and "changing the world with a little more effort." The guy who developed a proof to Fermat's Last Theorem worked on it for seven years. I suspect people laughed at him, told him he would never succeed, told him he should do other things. After he came up with the solution, he was knighted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27_proof_of_Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles%27_proof_of_Fermat%27s_La...
  - nkassis 16y ago
    Here's a documentary about him, it's worth watching: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8269328330690408516# http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8269328330690408516#
  - billswift 16y ago
    There is a big difference between working on something for a long time and, basically, just keeping hoping for a long time. I wonder how many people who have their PhDs and hope for an academic job are really working at improving their abilities in their fields, or even at keeping up.

DenisM 16y ago

>Other than law (and we have too many of those, too) What's wrong with the lawyer profession? Last I checked good corporate lawyers make $300-$500/hour. My inexpensive corporate attorney is somewhere around $250/hour I think. Good divorce laywers are impossible to find, and the ones that are there are spoiled they can afford not to return their clients calls for days and days. There appears to be a serious shortage of those types of lawyers, and it's exactly good fit for the kind of people you described.

DenisM 16y ago
Well, maybe I was wrong after all: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/you-know-the-legal-job-market-must-be-bad/68852/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/you-know...

nostrademons 16y ago

Consultancies.

sfard 16y ago

Best economic use you ask? Well the whole point of the Economist article is that in most academic fields there's an incredible oversupply of PhDs. What's the use of a 1,000 houses in a town of 100 people? Here's the source of the problem as I see it. The PhDs I know are largely risk intolerant and stay in academia because it's a comfortable way to pursue their passion. They're used to asking for permission and people evaluating them along very specific guidelines. When they enter the real or corporate world, they're used to this attitude of asking for permission to do things. They expect universities or corporations to find a use for their talent instead of architecting one themselves. So what is their economic use? They need to figure that out. One solution would be to design a system that prepares them better for a world that's a lot more dynamic than their specific area of expertise might be.

kd0amg 16y ago
What's the use of a 1,000 houses in a town of 100 people? I don't think we gain much by assuming that a person with a PhD is only good for one thing when trying to find another use for them.
ebiester 16y ago
Let me rephrase: What are the best economic uses for highly intelligent, non-technical people, who are very good at sitting down, reading, and synthesizing information from a variety of sources? Most of the jobs that would be suggested are ones like law and journalism, both of whom are highly competitive as well. It's estimated that fewer than 400 people make a living off of fiction, and non-fiction in most cases is a field owned by academics. Further, most auxiliary careers, such as political analysts, draw from academia. So, if this is your top talent, you only have a few options, and other than law, academia actually is one of your best chances to use your top talent. It's a bit like athletics in this society. If you are very strong and very fast, you have a very limited amount of economically viable options for you. The NBA is a long, long shot, but if you are 6'9 and fast, and that is your primary talent, what do you do?
- tome 16y ago
  It's estimated that fewer than 400 people make a living off of fiction Wow, can you point me to a reference for this statement? I find it remarkable.

light3 16y ago

Write novels or do something related to history?

redthrowaway 16y ago

Think tanks, if the degree is at all applicable.

Tichy 16y ago

Serving hot dogs and fries?

gyardley 16y ago

I left a PhD program in history and ended up working at a series of startups. Eventually, I founded one. My cohort at school, on average, was smarter and harder-working than I was - I'm sure they could do exactly the same thing, if they wanted to. Or, for that matter, they could do anything else they wanted. The issue isn't that there's no economic use for these people. The issue is that there's (close to) no economic use for what they really, really, really want to do.

slee029 16y ago

I think that "one thing" you identify is one of the most important abilities in determining business success. Those who refined their ability to properly communicate, think critically, and analyze problems have built a transferable skill set that cannot afford to be learned at the workplace. So in my opinion, they've got plenty of options. You could easily go the business consulting route where they specifically look for people with those traits and eventually have them specialize in some field. From there you could easily transfer to any industry job you specialize in for a comfortable living. The more ambitious could use those skills to build a startup and surround themselves with the right mix of a math or science backgrounds to create a business.

WalterBright 16y ago

When I was at Caltech, a number of students were interested in Astronomy and majored in it. They were well aware, though, that the chances of getting a job in Astronomy were exceedingly small. So they did the sensible thing - double majored. One was AY and was for fun, the other they expected to be able to get a job in.