4 ms·
> Each year, every laboratory produces a new crop of Ph.D.’s, who must compete for a small number of jobs, and the competition is getting fiercer. In 1973, more
by w1ntermute 15y ago
> Each year, every laboratory produces a new crop of Ph.D.’s, who must compete for a small number of jobs, and the competition is getting fiercer. In 1973, more than half of biologists had a tenure-track job within six years of getting a Ph.D. By 2006 the figure was down to 15 percent.
That's why the smart thing to do is to take yourself out of the competition - go into the industry. The whole idea of "science for science's sake" doesn't work when each professor advises a dozen PhD students over his career - the majority of those students have to go somewhere outside academia, and industry is the obvious (and only other) choice.
- sien 15y agoWhich is what many of them do. This graph gives people an idea of what happens: http://sciblogs.co.nz/griffins-gadgets/2010/11/02/your-science-in-seven-words/career-pathway/ http://sciblogs.co.nz/griffins-gadgets/2010/11/02/your-scien... The next question is whether it's worth doing a PhD for the 2/3 people who don't work in Academia. Perhaps it is.
- w1ntermute 15y ago> The next question is whether it's worth doing a PhD for the 2/3 people who don't work in Academia. Perhaps it is. I think this actually depends on your field. Basically, it's a matter of running the numbers - if the difference between the increase in income and the cost of grad school for you (both loss of income and the effort required) is significantly greater than 0 - go for it.