That is why I am doing mine. Plus my company is paying for it. Really, I am just sacrificing time. I would rather waste my time with education than watching TV or playing videogames. /Shrug
To be honest, that's the mature way of looking at it. Those who do if for the pursuit of knowledge usually complete it. Compared to those who see the $$ signs at the end.
Same. My employment and salary prospects were already very strong with a Master's degree in Physics. A PhD opens the door to future academic roles, some industry R&D roles, and maybe a shorter path to senior positions at data, fintech and Dev companies, but I don't care about most of that. l'm doing a PhD in Astrophysics because I want to personally contribute something to our collective knowledge of the universe. Maybe I'll want to further pursue academia after my PhD, but I think I'll be satisfied with my contributions by means of a few research papers and a PhD thesis.
I’m currently pursuing my PhD (4th year). I never intended to enter the professoriate. I’d been weighing the pros and cons for applying for about 8 years prior to applying and what pushed me was a realization that, in life, we tend to regret the things that we don’t do more than the things that we do. Although it’s tough, I am happy that I made the jump.
Recently doctorated in Material Science. My thesis was on thin films, I do now make DRAM memories in industry. Is PhD valuable? Yes. Helped? Yes. I could have done the same job with my master? Absofuckilutely. Did I regret to go on PhD path? Yes. 25K in salary more as entry position but... 5 years with 30K salary, plus mental pressure and grown anxiety. I could have entered at age 25 in industry, and in 5 years i'd earned way more, with a 9-5 job. Phd was 24/7 never stop. If I come back in time to my 20s i'll slap my face.
I dropped PhD in CS after 2 years realising that the ROI is just not there. If I ever need a PhD for my carreer I can always come back and with the gained industry experience I can do it in 2 years.
@@martink5391 i feel you. In my case due to the Visa I had to continue. I wish i had the balls to take the second master and leave using the opt from there. At least I've no debt...
My tutor has a PhD in computer science and he's 23.I still can't fathom how you could be that knowledgeable and be so young,I think getting a PhD is a magnificent achievement 👍
Thank you for sharing your insights, Andy! I've given up the idea of having a permanent job, like a university tenure, a long time ago. I'm not saying I won't settle down on a good offer. I'm just saying that I focus on self-growth which can also come with changing roles/jobs. It's doable as long as you have careful financial planning for yourself and your dependents. One of my professors told me to not expect a good job market after completing my PhD, to which I responded, "It's ok. I know." I have many years of industry experience, and I'm returning to academia (as a PhD research fellow) this year because I want the kind of research training provided in the university. I have several ideas for my postdoc research; I hope I can finalize one of them to apply for a research grant (in collaboration with an experienced researcher) at the end of my PhD period. Meanwhile, I'll monitor the development of the industry of my field, and maybe pick up one or two new relevant skills, so that if I can't get a postdoc, I can work in the industry again. Life is fun when you're comfortable with uncertainties :)
I'm a PhD student myself. The issue of supply and demand is on point. The supply of PhD student, maybe for fields like physics, chemistry, bio are a bit too high. The demand for PhD student, i.e., the tenure track job is low. Then, PhD students are trapped in the endless cycle of postdocs. I see another issue: some PhD in these fields worked on too specific/narrow subjects. It might be hard for the students to transition to outside options, such as industry. The industry also thinks the same thing.
It's why you have to look at a PHD in respect to what skills you are learning and what contacts you are getting. It needs to be broad so what you learn can be applied in many different situations. So I went to industrial PHDs as they teach how to bridge the gap between academia and industry and offers industry placements and gives me industry contacts and I chose one which is a very profitable industry. Then their is skills, my project mixes microbiology, agronomy, epidemiology, field trials, epigenetics, sociology, statistics and toxicology.
Well I think if you are in the public sector (e.g., public health, government, university) a PhD can open a lot of doors for someone. There are a lot of positions if you want to achieve an associate director or higher you need to have a PhD even though the job position doesn't explicitly state that. As of now I am working on my second masters degree and debating on whether a PhD would be worth it--but it might if it means that I can get to the higher levels within my own field. For instance, in a recent job interview the executive director suggested that I should consider getting a doctorate as its clear that I am a "life long learner" and could truly benefit from obtaining it. We shall see :)
Agreed we need more science and engineering types. The law, gender studies, and social sciences not so much. I think those fields right in public forums are making the rest of the college community look very foolish as if late.
I have a Ph.D. from a mid-level university, I've been a college professor since the late 1980s, I also spent a bunch of years as a department chairman at a mid-level university, in the US and I've had about twenty PhD students and I've seen how their careers have progressed. My former students have ended up in the pharmaceutical industry, in academia, and in the FDA. All the same, I agree with most of what you say here. In life sciences most of the jobs for BS and MS degrees suck. In life sciences a PhD degree with an excellent publication record is impressive even if you are from a mid-range university. But with a PhD from a top rate university you get the benefit of the doubt even with fewer good pubs. So you're right, the deck is a little bit stacked. I also spent a sabbatical year at Harvard and saw first-hand how students and postdocs from there ended up, as well as my own career trajectory after that year. To be fair it's incredibly difficult to be accepted into a graduate program at a place like Harvard, and I was blown away by the quality of the graduate students that they have there.
The Universities do not monitor the career trajectories of their PhDs. So these post docs come and go and you never see a lot of them again. In Med School I noticed my school monitored careers and match percentage and made decisions on their research into the careers of their graduates. And I think the big shots in Science want to keep things this way. Lots of high tech slaves with no rights.
@@kimw12394 I should start by saying that getting into a particular area of research is a bit like learning a new language and you progress in stages. Initially one's knowledge of the literature and one's ability to make really creative inferences from what you're reading is a bit limited but as you become more and more familiar with the literature the depth of your knowledge increases, you are able to make more complex arguments etc. Some people can make that progression faster than others. It just seemed to me that the Harvard students that I met (and I got to know about seven of them very well in the Department of Neurobiology, admittedly a relatively small sample) seemed to be at a remarkably advanced level of understanding relative to the time that they had been in graduate school. This is compared to the students that I have known well, including my own, at the two mid-level universities where I have spent my faculty career. Admittedly, the Harvard sample is much smaller. Another thing I noticed is that there was a culture at Harvard where students tended to spend more time in the lab, and they hung around together a bit more, and often seem to discuss science more often amongst themselves. Another element I noticed is that all of the Harvard students had extensive laboratory experiences as undergraduates and for the most part seem to have pretty well developed manual skills. The best of them seem to have a depth of understanding comparable (at the very least) to very good senior postdocs, ironically sometimes better than the postdocs I knew well at Harvard. I have had a handful of students with some of those traits at my own universities, but all of the ones that I knew at Harvard were like that. It really all comes down to a program's applicant pool, the more people apply to a program the more selective they can afford to be.
@@kimw12394 I did my PhD and postdoc in universities like this, not exactly Harvard but similar, and I would say it's like this. The graduate students had perhaps 2-4 years of research experience as undergraduates, so they could hit the ground running. They were also largely mentored by a senior grad student or postdoc during this time, so they have had a lot of one-on-one development by then. They also did well in their classes, so they have a decent grasp of the basics. They are typically self-motivated, and competitive. But that's not even the most important part, imo. The most important part is the culture, where: 1. There's a relatively high wash-out rate within the first 1-2 years, usually coinciding with the Qual deadlines but not always. It's not exactly correct to say that those who wash out are "inferior," because all sorts of real-life problems can cause this.... eg., medical/psychological condition, traumatic experience, sudden family change (like unexpected birth or death in the family), a work change (getting a job offer or other opportunity that you can't refuse), etc. But a certain number do also quit after deeming themselves unfit to continue, or after being "strongly encouraged" by their advisor or the department to do so. 2. The advisors are super A-type personalities with extremely high demands and expectations. Granted, this can be true anywhere, but usually the PIs at these top 5's got where they are by being even more intense than usual. 3. There are LOTS of students who fall between the cracks, but because the others are doing exciting work these noes who fall through are kind of swept under the rug and never discussed again. This is especially true because these top universities have lots of mega-groups with 30+ people at a time. This can happen for a lot of reasons, but probably the biggest factor is inadequate self-motivation. In a group of that size, you have to be self-motivating because no one's going to look over your shoulder and see how you are doing (until it's too late and you bomb your annual group meeting). Another factor can be equipment rationing. Maybe a student who is too quiet and doesn't speak up for themselves gets squeezed out of a vital experiment and just kind of atrophies away over years. The ones who fall between the cracks either eventually glide into a low-pass PhD, or detach from the program along the way. --- The best thing you could do for yourself, as a mid-tier university graduate student trying to break into academia (tenure-track) or government, is publish-publish-publish. The name won't open doors, but your publication record does not lie. Don't pursue idle research interests, or coast and just take a project as it comes (beyond your first project, since at that point you won't have enough context to know what's exciting anyway). Pursue what's publishable as rapidly as possible, with the biggest impact possible. Then do it again and again and again. Don't pursue projects just because they personally excite you, if they won't make a big splash or be doable in a short time. Don't tackle so on many things simultaneously that you can't sit down and write manuscripts, or so few that if 1-2 things fail you're dead in the water. Don't rely on big gambles on blue-sky ideas to aim for Nature and Science papers, if failure means no publication at all. Don't stubbornly pursue something that you know won't work just because of sunken time costs; rather, know when to shut down a project and choose a more fruitful one. Overall, just do as much publishable work as possible and let the Science papers come from shocking surprises you see on the lab bench, rather than ideas you constructed from scratch (unless those are quick to pursue and publish, in which case go for it!). That way, you have the fall-back option of "just" having a lot of papers even if nothing Science-level happens, which is already a great position to be in. Meanwhile, blue sky ideas don't often work anyway, and what really generates high-end papers is trying lots of stuff and seeing what sticks. If there's a Gaussian curve for result quality, and the top 0.5% are worthy of a major publication, you're more likely to find one of these simply by sampling more frequently. If you try enough things, some of them are bound to be in the top levels of excitement. The challenge at that point is to be prepared enough, in terms of background reading and undersatnding your community and so forth, to actually capitalize on that opportunity when it appears in the data. There won't be an alarm that sounds when a Nature-quality result appears. It will just be a curve or a data point on your monitor, or an unusually shaped precipitate in your solution, just another one of the last thousand you measured, and it will be up to you recognize that this particular data point is special and understand why. --- As for getting into industry, if you can manage it, a great strategy would be to still publish-publish-publish, so you can get your foot in the door of a top university as a postdoc or visiting scholar. Then industry comes to you. At big-name universities, there are regularly representatives of everything from investment banking and consulting firms, to aerospace, data science, top car brands, chip manufacturers, etc., just setting up booths in the building and passing out recruitment fliers to anyone who walks by with a lab notebook in hand. And even if you are sending out applications cold, all they will likely notice is the name on the letterhead, which is where your postdoc is. If that is not an option, look for PIs with personal connections to the sector you want to join. Maybe they coauthored papers with someone in the national lab you want to work at, or they have demonstrated a pipeline of past students into particular companies you're interested in. Sometimes smaller-name universities remain competitive by becoming extremely specialized in a particular sub-field, and are well-known within that sub-field. Research if that is the case for your sector of interest, and try to postdoc there. If you're not interested in a particular sector, but just want good employment somewhere, consider non-traditional paths as well. A lot of my cohort from graduate school ended up going into stuff like non-profits, administrative, entrepreneurship, data science, politics, law, teaching at the grade school level. Stuff like this doesn't rely so much on your publication record, and in many cases on the the prestige of your university.
I totally relate, thank you Andy. PhDs seem largely undervalued because designed to train professional academics, for the most part. Highly technical domains would benefit more from pursuing a PhD (e.g. data science, some advanced engineering, medical, etc). My domain is urban planning / human geography. I got my PhD at a former polytechnic in the North-East (England), doing a sort of market review of digital software in urban planning. So the PhD was fairly applied, looking at emerging market trends and opportunities for tech adoption across local government. I also have two master degrees and a bachelor degree from some of the very top universities in Europe. Although I have always networked extensively even as a Master student, I somehow failed to observe most academics work 60+ hours, with lots of 'volunteering' required (peer-reviewing journal articles; grant funding applications; informal mentoring in domain-specific networks, board meetings; doing major corrections for submitted journal manuscripts; etc). However, it seems more of a liability to be highly educated when seeking work in industry, where all that seems to be required of candidates is to tick the right corporate boxes and adopt companies' systems and procedures without asking too many of the practical questions that interest industry-focused researchers. Also, AI-driven job board application systems that can filter out some of the most desirable candidates even if you mention all the right keywords. Government grant-funding for research and postdoc positions in anything remotely connected to my area of research are fiercely competitive across Europe. Also, covid-recovery and austerity means government might not be as keen to hire as they used to. All things considered, academics also seem to earn much less than senior industry professionals. Also, it seems transferable skills from academia transfer well to other academic settings, then to industry. But as highlighted in the video, I did learn tons personally and connected with great people. Career-wise, though, perhaps I could have spent that time learning more data and computing as developers and analysts are in high demand across Europe, especially at senior level.
PHD Stands for piling higher and deeper, no one gives a shit outside academia about your pieces of paper only what you can do to advance their business
I was shocked by how low the salary numbers were for PhDs in Math and Computer Science. Many of the software engineers I know make way over this and some of them don't even have a 4-year degree. They are just really good at getting things done with high quality and customer focus.
withing the software field talking in general, having a degree is useless, you want certifications in programming, leadership, they are hugely more important than the degree itself
@@rewrite1239 okay buddy. like people don't have to go through multiple rounds and study leetcode. you especially don't want to identify on resume any extra information beyond your experience because of bias.
Depends what field of maths - if you become a Quant or Data scientist its name your own salary time, if its an area thats theoretical and over subscribed then salary will be low.
To be fair real world programming differs drastically from what they teach in university, so a fresh CS bachelor is pretty much of the same value as a fresh PHD to most companies.
@@rewrite1239 Strange, since studies generally show the complete opposite. Black graduates who whiten their names and hide their racial identity get more job officers on average.
I believe you're on the spot with this Andy. We reached that point years ago with persons holding a masters degree. Whereas it was sufficient to indicate you held a post graduate degree ... it then became a critical differentiator to state WHERE you did your post graduate degree. Invariably, we ae quickly reaching that point on PhD holders. This is being exacerbated with Universities wishing to churn out post graduate students even though the quality and rigour is weak. While undermining the University and academia as a whole, the short-term metrics being imposed by University Administrators - predominantly financial and #of students - appear to fuel this practice. Higher ranked Universities, more so ones with deep pockets, can afford less emphasis on those metrics. Further, the cost of education for non-resident persons has galloped into the realms of the ridiculous.
As a former grad student myself, I can tell you that the grad student population is full of people who are putting off getting a real job. They didn’t know what research was, they didn’t do internships while they were undergrads, and they don’t have any other opportunities available in their chosen fields. It’s either grad school or retail. So, they choose grad school. It’s not clear to me that most of us belonged in grad school because our advisors gave us research questions and declared the definitive interpretations of data. We were little more than lab technicians. But, if you stick it out and work for them, they’ll eventually give you a degree… of dubious value. The graduate never had to prove the ability to ask a worthy research question in the first place or solve it. Capitalism has nothing to do with this, unless you want to say that academic advisors are parasitic bosses. I do like that you made a distinction between getting a degree anywhere versus getting a degree with an industrial affiliation. That’s what you really need at the undergraduate level, too: summer internships learning a real job. Then, you should take what you learned back to college the next year and do some research that can be tested the following summer. Then, in your senior year, you can write up a bachelors or master thesis about this work. That’s how you prove you can do private (or government) work. Completing a major or grad degree at any level is only proof that you might be a decent trivial pursuit player-not that the graduate is useful.
I'm fine with my bachelor's degree for a software development career. Academic background have been important to my employers, but mainly that I have some theoretical background, methodology and general scientific critical thinking. Considered getting a master but realized that all advanced skills I would need can be found in trade schools. I don't care to do research, which academia is for after all.
As a final year PhD student who intends to finish in 3 years (UK system)- I would say, if you do end up doing a phd, do it for selfish reasons. It's a degree like any other degree, don't be sentimental about it, take advantage of travel opportunites, training courses and learn as much in your first and second year and get out asap. If a project is not going well by the 15 month, get out. If young (26 or young), find new mentors. Don't worry about a perfect thesis, worry about a done thesis. I also worked before this and learned where the gaps were in my field and wanted to use the PhD and the skills to create a niche for myself that I can monetize on. If you can do it while young, it is best. Whatever you do - find out ways to make a return on your investment (go into consultancy if all else fails). Sell, sell and sell yourself, use it to be a better speaker, attend career guidance talks, meet new people, grow yourself, use what you learn to uplift your community, and inspire young kids. Above all, have a growth mindset, and don't be a jerk just cos you have a Ph.D. Your general knowledge will have declined by the time you are done.
I’m studying quantum computing and doing a PhD right now is essential to get a high paying industry job in the field because it primarily requires you to work in research and development. Id say it’s not worth it to do a PhD unless: you have a passion for your specific field and studying it as a career is your dream, or you simply need the degree to get the sort of job you want (which is my scenario).
In tech, many of the brightest choose to work instead of doing a PhD. Your ideas and personality are far more important than whether you went to an Ivy league or not.
Another issue in the tech world is what new and exciting, and gets published, changes quickly. When I finished my Masters in Comp Sci years ago database where the big thing. So, I would have likely focused on some aspect of that in my PhD. Now, few care and Machine Learning is going to save world. Next????
I completed my PhD in industrial Engineering and Computational Applied Mathemarics. Most of my research was solving applied problems for the sector I planned to work in and sponsored by NSF, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and so forth. I also did consulting while completing the curriculum. Mind you, I already had an MS in Mech-Aero Engineering and professional work experience. I picked up my P.E. license along the way and my TS clearence. I am currently a Project Lead Engineer, and hopefully in route for the Chief Engineer of my division. I would say, to me getting a PhD is great...depending what it entails and what you do or have done along the way while completing it, and how that would benefit you in the long run.
Very helpful insight, thank you! As someone considering graduate school, it helps to hear from someone who has done it before and is willing to speak honestly about it
I would also like to add that I think you are correct in the sense that obtaining a PhD from a top university will get the most exposure, however, I also think that it depends on the area of business or academia that you obtain the PhD. Just my thoughts! I'm glad I found your channel.
I'm just finishing my PhD (I've got my viva next month) and although it was at a mid-range university, I think the thing I can show best to employers is that during my study I put out three papers in internationally recognised journals. This essentially means I have documented the progress through my study at a clearly recognisable professional level, with external peer review, and even for someone unfamiliar with the process of getting a PhD it can act as a portfolio of work and that is inherently valuable. I'd strongly encourage all PhD students to be publishing during, helps as a way of writing up as you go for your thesis too.
I am doing a PhD in the UK in a mid tier University. I priorly worked in the corporates and didn't like that. Thought I would like research and enrolled for a PhD but I am very unhappy and dissatisfied with that too. Unable to write a critical literature review even after an entire year since enrollment. I am not sure, what I should do now.
Ahhh ... you've made some points that I have made or that I have heard you make in the past. First, anyone even considering a PhD has to think about where they want to go with their careers. Do they actually need one? Are there other options? Do you have a chance to go into either industry or academia with this degree? And so on. I think it would help anyone to speak to their guidance counselors and career counselors before even coming into undergraduate university. As you have said time and time again, if you do not have a good, specific plan with your goals, you are in trouble. That the PhD has not been, for some time now, a landing spot toward being hired or going directly into academia. It is now just the price of admission. Second, unfortunately if someone is going for a degree in the liberal arts/humanities, good luck finding a job. It is way too over-saturated as it is, with no academic jobs really available. I can remember watching a series from an English literature professor talking about how to couch your PhD in English to become an underwriter for an insurance company or other such things. However, there is a problem in the business world. Why would I hire anyone with that sort of degree instead of hiring someone who already has some experience in the business world or more specifically already has done this sort of job before? Third, speaking of academic jobs, yes, for the last few decades, it has been known that if you did not go to a prestigious enough university for your PhD, it will be very difficult for you to be acknowledged or hired for academia. So you have to be, as you say, "very clever", with internships, undergraduate research, and high GPAs as well as high entrance exam scores, to be able to get into that sort of university. However, it is also having the insight that going into a PhD in these places is extremely cutthroat competitive to get into the university in the first place, let alone stay there once you get there. Fourth, it is hard to say how much scientific advancements will be made into the future from the university and PhD level. Why do I say this? I am reminded of a quote from a famous academic talking about the "Visible or Vanish" problem. He said something like, "If the 'publish or perish' phenomenon was around in 1964, I, and my team would never have come up with our theory. There would not be enough time to develop it." And who said it? Professor Higgs. If the professor that changed the standard model of subatomic particles is saying academia has a problem, then ... YES, academia has a problem! And lastly, yes, as dkcarey mentioned, it is about getting more undergraduates into university and getting more graduate students into a PhD program simply based on economics alone. As bad as this sounds, what many students are doing is not preparing for a career or to have any marketable success getting through a PhD (even though some disciplines are easier to do). No. Sadly, all these people are doing is essentially paying the salary for the professors already there. Not only are you doing their work for them (being in the lab, teaching a class, doing their research, grading papers, and so on), but it almost does not matter if you complete a PhD or not. They will soon replace you in any event to keep the money flowing. Worse, yes, Google and other places in the Information Age has somewhat ruined the master's and PhD. In the past, you had to learn how to write. How to use a dictionary and thesaurus. How to have proper grammar. How to use the Card Catalog System in the library. Actually reading the books, journals, and letters from this scientist or that writer. Now, everything is at your fingertips and some bit of reasoning and "old-school" like research has gone by the wayside. And sorry, I am showing my age a bit in noting, "I remember a world without people having personal computers!" But the point still stands. So, at times, it goes back to what you mentioned a month ago or so ... Academia/PhD can be seen as a scam, as a "highway robbery". And so you really have to be sure as to what you are doing with your life and how to get there. Thank you for all of your work, Dr. Stapleton.
I agree on some very valid points that you have made. I don't have time to go into all of them at this time, however, the point concerning the effect of technology on the brain. There is truly an impact that has occurred. I too can recall a time without computers but once they hit it was like wildfire! Having working in the arena of Information Technology for over 20 years I can understand and reflect on the times when noun-verb agreement was a must. Anyway, now that I am a little more ripe (mature). I am seriously thinking about going back to my first real reason for going to college. I will divulge that at a later time.
I earned a Doctorate of Nursing Practice in anesthesia, I originally earned a BS in medicinal chemistry (bio chemistry) and wanted to pursue a PhD in biochemistry but from what I’ve learned about pharmacology through application and from going through the nurse anesthetist program, I’m very satisfied with the knowledge I obtained and my background still allows me to conduct research in my spare time, so for me a PhD would be just an expensive paperweight. The fact that I’m able to apply my knowledge in a medical setting and also participate in research, makes it the best of both worlds for me and the pay is not bad either.
Depends on what you do with it. Everyone I know who has a PhD works at a university or writes. Probably less useful in the workforce unless you're in R&D at a large company. Generally PhDs will have to compete with people who have more work experience doing the day to day tasks.
For the increase in number of PhDs awarded 1958-2020, two major factors stand out to me. First, the US population has almost doubled in that time, from 174m to 331m. In 1958, around 50 PhDs were awarded per million citizens. In 2020, that rose to around 166 per million. A 90% increase in population in that interval means the expected PhDs per million in 2020 by 1958 standards should be around **95 per million**. Secondly, in 1958 only around 10% of PhDs awarded in the USA across all fields were awarded to women. Academia wasn't very accessible to women in that time. a 90/10 split meant that women only had around 1/9th the opportunity of men. As a first order approximation, a 50-50 split seems reasonable. Of course popularity and number of available/required PhDs varies with field, so 50-50 is not likely the true "perfect" split, but it's likely much closer than 90-10. If 1958 numbers were picked from a population consisting of all men, but only 1/9th of capable women, it's not unreasonable to expect that the remaining 8/9ths of the female population have since got to a point where PhDs are accessible to them. There is very little preventing women from getting PhDs nowadays. So, if 1958 numbers were made up of 10/18 of the population, and we expect today's numbers to represent the whole population, we multiply the **95 per million** (expected in 2020 by 1958 standards) by 1.8 (to get from 10/18 to 18/18 of the total population), and we get... **171 expected PhDs per million in 2020**. Compare that to the actual number of 166 per million... As a first-order approximation with two simple factors accounted for (in simplistic ways, I admit), we've already over-accounted for the increase in PhDs awarded between 1958-2020. Basically, it's reasonable to claim that standards haven't changed. The population of people who can earn PhDs has changed, in two ways - by both overall population growth, as well as by eliminating barriers for women to pursue PhDs.
And people with disabilities, and differing racial backgrounds, and poor people, and ....... if we DONT want to value thinking - there might be a long term issue.....
The expected PHDs by 1958 standards is 50 per million. You only increase the number if there was already some sort of upward trend you are including. The amount of X per Y doesn't increase with the increasing of Y, it decreases if X doesn't increase in proportion.
I feel like getting your PhD is like getting your black belt, A black belt does not mean you’re done does that mean you’ve accomplished some big thing it means that you have acquired all of the basic skills to begin applying those basic skills in a coordinated fashion towards an intent or means to an end. PhD only means that you are rigorously train that you have developed some “new” Metaphysical construct which is hoping to add utility function to not just yourself to other constructs as well. it’s amazing that you got a PhD great, you’re not getting a PhD for other people you’re not getting a PhD because society says it’s impressive you’re not getting a PhD because of any of these other reasons you go get a PhD and you’re getting a PhD because it is a dedication to rigorous minded logical training being able to rigorously be able to understand that you have developed some thing rigorously, that is there because of your existence. It’s unwise to do things because of other people or other systems. PhD only is a communal recognition that you have spent enough hours on rigorous that your application of rigorous coincides with the communal understanding of rigorous. And that view has been derived from something tangible. Instead of magic. It’s all about meaning and purpose!!!
Returning to school for a masters in biomedical engineering - for the pursuit of knowledge. I’ve worked for over a decade, paid off all my loans, excited to reorient my career (undergrad is chemical/environmental engineering)! PhD is not worth it for me at this point in my life.
I studied Physics. I can tell you that there's a lot of content in a PhD. You definitely learn a lot more doing a PhD than working at a company. That being said, the whole academic system today is based on exploitation. I have no intention of furthering a system where some highly cited researchers control nearly all resources to the field with near zero accountability while exploiting young people and postdocs in a scheme which in any other situation would be called human trafficking. I am pretty happy working at a bank, it's a much more ethical business, and I would only consider going back to academia once I can fund what I want to study without using the system we currently have.
@@griesjm Yes, what most people in academia don't realize about banking is that most of the work is in compliance checks, risk assessment, etc., making sure that people don't scam others. Compare it to crypto where people are scammed and others lose their life savings all the time, and you'll see that banking does contribute to society. Meanwhile, when I was in physics, it was all just a stupid game where people were trying to publish inane papers in prestigious journals just to outadvertise their competitors. If this is not meaningless speculation with taxpayers money, I don't know what is.
The thing is the demand is very small for PhDs if going for most jobs/careers. If you were very rich it would be extremely rewarding to just research what you enjoyed. The really ugly truth is professors often are constantly going after funding, our most successful one spent 90% of his time doing just that.
Nice point. Yes, one should not do it, just for a career as there's little demand for such a qualification. If you do have research topics, then it's a good idea to explore it on your own. Or with the appropriate funding. That said, if you want to serve your country in terms of policy-making, then doing a Ph.D definitely makes sense too. Again, as is obvious, it's not for everyone, as the numbers reveal!
6:48 these words are truth, sadly professors sometimes are not intersested in the student's future career, because they are more into making intellectual and monetary profit from student's research. A good professor should be interested more in his students growth which means to care even about his students future careers both in academia or industry
On the question of "who benefits the most" really comes down to the field you are in. I can certainly see it being. the case that the PI benefits the most from a student doing work in their lab for something like Chemistry or Automotive Engineering, but in mathematics, students are a constant time sink. I could probably finish my students' projects in a fraction of the time it takes them to get their head around the problem. In this setting, it's much more about mentoring the students and guiding them through the research, which takes a lot of time. I am sure to fund them so that they don't have to be a TA the whole time, but it's really more work to have students than not.
I got my PhD 10 years ago and have over 60 publications. I could get a PhD again in about 18 months by publishing 3 papers topped and talked by a literature review and epilogue. The level and requirement these days is through the floor.
I would say that the problem is related to the need to lower the threshold for what constitute “original work” otherwise there would be virtually no new PhDs. This does not make the work less valuable, it just means that the big, flashy discoveries (as perceived by the world outside academia) do not come as often and instead tend to be more derivative (shoulders of giants and all that).
Good video ive finished my 1st year phd and have 3 left i like this video because it is the other side of it alot of the things you have meintioned I was aware of it before my phd because i took a break after my masters for 6yrs to get some work experience in research ive already decided not to prusue a academic career and i want to work as a researcher or project manager for the GOVT or NGO Im doing my phd because its something i want to do its on my bucket list and i love my topic. I also think it will benefit me in the longrun in my career
I've wondered this but for another reason. Colleges are coming up with positions such as "you're not allowed to grade papers based on grammar because its racist", and other things to lower the bar (ie Stanford dropping the Greek or Latin requirement from its classics program), I wonder who we're doing a service to. Many freshly graduated PhDs conduct themselves in a such a way that I find it hard to believe they've moved past an undergrad degree. This even includes many from Ivy league schools. You look at their PhD dissertation and the quality of work makes you question how any committee passed it. Makes you wonder if its a great scam with university costs going up. Lower the bar and put as many PhDs rubber stamped through the assembly line to collect tuition, grants, and/or free labor? Look at the PhDs being produced today vs even the 90's or early 2000s. Makes one wonder.
@dkcarey I can only speak for my own field (Linguistics), but the PhDs being produced now are generally much more empirically impressive than those produced even just 15 years ago (more advanced methodologies, more advanced statistics, more data --generally more serious scientific work)
I sincerely hope I’m wrong and totally off base, but what I’ve seen has said otherwise. Are the both of you outside of America? Maybe that’s part of the difference.
@@dkcarey1 I'm not in America. At my university the bar keeps getting raised higher and higher. It's much harder now than before to even get a Masters much less a PhD
I'm doing my PhD in bio-analytical chemistry now. My grandfather coincidentally was also a chemist. He did his PhD in the early 50s. Frankly, his dissertation was not very impressive; I could have done all the measurements he did during my master's degree but he still ended up being a successful entrepreneur after defending. My aunt became a successful virology professor her thesis written in the 90s was good but hardly groundbreaking work. Her finest hours came during her post doc. My father was a successful theoretical physicist but partied more than he worked. He is old now but still brags about having binge-drinked the night before his reclassification exam. Back then PhDs were never more than 4 years. Most of my colleagues today are in it for at least 6 years with luck. People often confuse lowering of academic standards for over-production of PhDs. We are also over-producing undergraduates mind you. The argument could be made that we are producing more PhDs than is actually needed but PhDs are about as hard as they were 50 years ago. It's still years of hard gruelling work for no immediate material reward. I'd argue a PhDs today are much harder: they are longer, less career prospects, more likely to leave you in debt and less funding than 20 years ago. If 21st century PhD doesn't create good scientists, it certainly creates good cockroaches that can survive more hostile conditions than before and thrive in the face of adversity.
@@nicolasgrinberg1996 Are you sure though you aren't looking at that through today's lens? We can often see things that are considered in today's light as given or no-brainers, but were not necessarily givens when written about. I'll take one from the computer field. Back in the early 2000s you could write a paper describing how you could potentially run operating systems in a virtual environment, having many different operating systems/servers on one physical piece of hardware. If we were to look at it today we would think of it as very simple as everything is virtualized now, however at the time it was against "common wisdom" and many people laughed at the thought, thinking it would be more of an amusement then for actual "real" workloads if you got it working. That's not to say there aren't exceptions to the rule. I don't dispute that we're over-producing undergraduates, and question many of those programs as well. I was considering 2 different PhD programs and another doctorate program, each pretty much gave an estimate of between 3-5 years, but thats only a sample size of 3. But thinking now, most of the PhDs and dissertations I've been disappointed in have not been in hard sciences. Would you say there has been a change in quality in PhDs if you exclude hard sciences? Creates good cockroaches hahaha, I literally laughed out loud for that :)
I work in education. I have a masters in political theory and decided not to pursue a PhD in political philosophy due to a lot of external reasons that had nothing to do with passion. I am getting a PhD in education policy . If I don’t get an academic job, I know that the degree is necessary to work in central office administration eventually. So I feel confident about my choice. Fingers crossed I get my dream job! I have been working hard on my CV.
Watching this video makes me realize that I really appreciate going to a research university (undergrad). The labor is still cheap but the professors head their own research labs here and it's the professors you ask if you want to work in a lab
1 in 50 have a PhD in the UK? I find that mind blowingly high. The main thing going for a PhD which I believe is universally true, is that it contributes to a stable, healthy self-identity that is extremely valuable when it comes to continuing our journey through life. Although there are cheaper options such as enrolling on an adult course connected with one's long term career development as you've pointed out many times in your previous videos.
Another parameter of success is the prominence of your Ph.D. advisor in your particular specialty. A well-respected mentor at a mid-level university can be very helpful in starting your academic career.
Hey mate! You are a smart man! Yesterday I was talking to a friend about the dark side of the Universitism industry and I said this: “I used to think smartness is about knowing a lot and being cognisant about the situation and the world. However, it appears to me that smartness is more about knowing enough about the situation and being able to spot where other parties are being cynical. When we fall for the beautiful future that the school and the uni paint for us to get our money, it means that we are not smart enough. I wonder if there is any national data in any country about how useless the uni degrees are and what portion of the graduates actually work in the fields that they have paid huge chunks of money to study.”
i don't know, part of me feels like this is the wrong question. i think the real value of a phd is in whether that individual is creating valuable knowledge in that particular field/topic; not because of any sort of income measurement
I have been thinking about this ALOT, 2 years into my PhD in mol. bio. I feel like I could have just gotten a master's degree, BUT money was a factor for me and I chose a PhD because it would be fully funded with a stipend vs a Master's degree (at least in the field i wanted) was not.
@Andrew That's just not true. Many companies actively seek PhD level employees, a person with PhD (and a post-doc) has much more experience that a MS (at least in US). I was only only looking for jobs hat wanted to hire PhDs, not to mention that salaries are higher as well.
@Andrew Well, I live a life with a PhD in science and I was actively searching for a job not too long ago, so I don't have to imagine anything cause I've already lived that. thanks
Make sure you want to work in the BioPharma/BioTech or Academia world. If so, you will advance faster with your degree, and potentially further than people without a PhD.
PhD never lost value in the first place, still top of the line in the academic and professional world The whole job market was shafted to high heavens in the first place
And what value would that be? Because people see value in different ways. Aside from those teaching at Ivy League schools, I make more money than you’re average PhD and only have a Bachelors (though doing grad school now). So I doubt you mean monitory value. Maybe impact on society?
They used to only let the top 5% of students into university. When they changed that number to the top 30% (and that 25% couldn't hack it) they lowered the standards. So now a PhD represents less qualified people and more of them than it used to - increased quantity and reduced quality = less value.
Agree with all the points made in this video. However, the fact that there exists little to no recognition of PhDs in the industry, having a PhD seems like a road to endless suffering. Industry demands fresh workers with bachelor degrees or the ones coming with management experience (from industry). The experience and the skills of a PhD graduate are not considered and they are treated as overqualified fresh graduates. This means poverty, joblessness and overall misery for the highly educated people of the society. Universities and Professors are literally behaving like slave owners and treat postdocs like slaves. Even postdoc positions require fresh PhD students because they know older postdocs would demand stable jobs so, they have created a rotatory system of abuse whereby each postdoc is considered for 2-3 years and the next announcement of postdoc then requires a PhD within 3-5 years from the time of advertisement. This essentially leaves a lot of postdocs jobless and struggling to make their ends meet. This toxic capitalistic academic empire must fall and the industry should recognize the PhD experience equivalent to senior management experience.
I finished my PhD (material science) myself in 2010 and tried to land a job in related industry ever since to no avail. I even started applying for a basic entry job e.g. lab assistant in the related industry and hoping to climb up the corporate ladder later on. Unfortunately there aren't many companies willing to accept PhD graduates for such entry level job. I changed my strategy and applied jobs without mentioning my PhD status. It landed me a job in the healthcare industries as a supervisor. I am pretty sure there are many PhD graduates that work in unrelated industry they are studying for. Just a couple years back for example, there was a news about PhD (social science) holder who worked as a security guard at Crown Casino. Despite all that , it is up to individual to decide whether or not getting PhD will add value to him/herself.
I have a different view on this where also school departs are starting to beef up ther practitioner level doc degrees to be as comprehensive and thorough as a Ph.D too
Masters holder chime in; PHD with no experience equals mop manager in my field. PHD with 20 plus year experience equals ready for c suite or senior leadership role with less required mid tier time in our field. But tech is it's own animal and a HS grad can be a PHDs equal in many ways. Bottom line, if it isn't ivy league, it ain't working for you without you working for it.
Not just ROI but also opportunity costs. For average people born in the developed world, in the time it takes to get a PhD, and there are no guarantees in terms of years required, one could have worked while young and accumulated enough wealth to kick start their investments and retire early. You have to be really passionate about your discipline and be willing to compete with the best and brightest to make the most of a PhD, and then there is the post-doc or two, by that stage, your friends who became trades people, bus drivers or graduated in accounting, will most likely have an investment property or two, and a maybe a nice boat. Considering that humanity will expand to 11 billion in the coming decades, and brain power starts to decline after 30, the premiums once enjoyed by brains are very much under pressure from capital accumulation. If you are born rich, then just pass GO and set up a brand or have other people do all the hard work...
In interesting topic would be, as AI is automating tasks and diminishing no-brain jobs, and space open up for more analytics job, how would that affect demand for high level academic degrees, and are universities well suited to fill that gap for the industry? Because as AI growth, it may some day in near future, a AI assistant be a better teacher than an actual teacher, or an research assistant
Sure! I am with you. Although I am an employee + with a fully sponsored scholarship for a PhD in engineering, my salary is the lowest among my engineer colleagues with bachelor's degrees. 😇
One thing not mentioned here is the type of life that awaits you after the PhD. If you continue as (professional) researcher, your life will often have unstable job + moving around a lot (incl country or states) because there's so few places your interest/niche would be appreciated. I'm don't have a PhD or doing one, only a masters degree, but I ended up in a industry research position that was originally looking for post doc. There's ways to get in to research without a PhD, although if you want to have a career in academia or work at top-level research institute (including industry) PhD is probably good to have. Now if I want to continue doing research (change job) then again suddenly the potential employer are very few and limited in places.
engineer here. phd is not needed most of time in real world, a 4 year degree engineer can do 95% of work, thats why phd usually gets paid same as bachelor graduate, and top of that, bachelor has 5-6 real world exp already by time phd graduates. and real world exp is far more valuable.
I am a professional engineer and work in bridge design. The reason the PhD is not treated as valuable is because the people in charge have bachelor's degrees. The people in charge decide how things are going to be done and this is based on what they themselves know. Do you think they will actually admit that the PhD is valuable? The most important thing to these people is getting on top and staying on top.
@@adrianalanbennett Maybe work for a company where the person in charge comes from research and has a PhD. Andrew Grove, former CEO of Intel had a PhD, even wrote a textbook. If you are at the level where you can write a textbook that is widely used, then you are a high caliber PhD. Or start your own company, and just see exactly how valuable your PhD is in bringing value to the market. No need for some employer's opinion.
Hi Andy What about supervisors? If you upscale your uni for a phd it goes against the advice of working with a supervisor you know. Unless you can be supervised by someone from a different university?
I'm a few months away from finishing my doctorate, and I agree, there is absolutely no good reason to pursue a Ph.D. unless you are going into medical research or some type of science field that requires a Ph.D. and Ph.D. level knowledge and expertise to do your daily job. I worked in industry for over a decade with a practical Master's degree and should have just stopped there. Listen to Andy, and do not waste your time pursuing a degree that is not going to get you any return on your mental, emotional, financial, and social investment.
A PHD is the perfect opportunity to get contacts especially if it's one that mixes with a private industry like my one which is with a Whisky company. So I am gathering contacts to guarantee myself a job at the end of it.
BS and MS in math here. I couldn't take the pain anymore so I didn't go for my PhD, chuckle chuckle. Then I went into the real world and took the first job I could get because, you know, inflation is a mutha effer and I just needed a paycheck. Fifteen years into that career, not only did I NEVER use my math skills, but I also got fat as f**k sitting behind a monitor all day long. Tho I did get very good at Word and Excel! Don't be like me.
What I honestly think you are missing is that achieving a PhD does not mean you are smart or good. There are a lot of medium to bad PhD students, and those are usually the ones that struggle afterwards. Having a PhD comes with certain expectations on the job market. There are plenty of jobs for PhDs but obviously if a company spends >100k pa. they want good quality for the money, and not every student, just because they have a PhD, can offer this.
The way I see it, it's like the PhD has become the new Masters, the Masters the new Bachelors and the Bachelors the new High School Diploma, and no one has stopped to ask if that's a good thing. I also question if maybe we should be focusing more on getting jobs and experience prior to terminal degrees, except for fields where you need the degree to operate. I see an alarming number of entry-level jobs inflating their requirements to require masters.
Considering that PhD's are just used as cheap labor (often cheap manual labor used to fill holes in underfunded lab budgets), it's not surprising that doing that for 4 to 6 years is considered less valued than working 4 to 6 years in a much more serious job. In industry you get to use the latest robots to save time and focus on the hard problems, as a PhD student you get to be the robot for 6 years, so your advisor can test his theories.
Ultimately people value you for the work you can do for them, and a specific type of work creates a certain amount of value. The university system is very inefficient about getting people to be able to give value that is needed.
I appreciate yout thoughts, but I want to say that all this stuff must be analyzed differentiating the fields of research, for example I started my phd one years ago in Geology (in a mid-range level university in Italy) and talking to other students there is an abyss between geo and bio-med phd in terms of competition, communication between researchers, collegues and professors. In addition I think that statistics about what university is in the top position in rankings are quite useless if they consider parameters that are not consistent with your work or even if you compare small research groups but very specialized in some studies.
I'm submitting my PhD thesis in a couple of weeks and currently looking at what I will do afterward. I went into a PhD after working for a couple of years because I had questions that no one had answers for and I fiugured that if no one knew the answer well I should be the one to find it. Now that it's coming to an end, I don't know how I'll be able to value this degree in expertise outside of Academia. I already have a job that use the skillset that I developped during the PhD, but still the only requierement for the job was really to be familiar with the subject and have experience. The PhD wasn't required and as such isn't really valued. I had the chance to work full time while doing my PhD, but when I'm looking at potential next step and career path they are more interested in my work experience than the expertise of the PhD. It's really like "Oh you had a position in organization X, that's impressive! Oh you did your PhD while working there, that's nice I guess?" The worst part is when talking with people from HR and some hiring managers who have absolutly no idea what to make from your degree or who consider that you are only a "student" and don't understand that a PhD is research work, not sitting studying in class doing homework. Or when they decide to hire a management consulting firm, with the consultants being ex MBA students of yours using the methodology you developped, published and taught them during their degree.....
I was pushing my little girl to get a PhD in macrobiology,when heared your video I began to think that she go masters in hemotology to get an other master thanks for your wise advice
I would argue rankings and the amount of NIH funding a university receives. If your program is in the top 10 for its field. For example, University of Michigan--Ann Arbor is ranked #23 in the US; however, for their School of Public Health its ranked #4 and highly regarded amongst those in the public health field.
As a biomed/data science phd grad it's super weird that people get doctorates without getting skills that industry people would be all over. I'm p sure I could double my postdoc salary in a company if I really haggled
Not just a PHD you need experience on the job. Unless you are in the medical field certain PHDs leave you institutionalized and you could be left with debt and behind the ball in making money, example: PTA(assistant) is a 2year degree) vs PT(PHD) is 8 years. The difference in pay is $12. So you have 6 extra years in the program accumulating 100k+ in loans. I would say get the 2 year degree, start making money, transfer to a 4 year degree and you will be making more money before that PHD start making money. You have a 6 year head start. Shoot it might be 10 years before that PHD keeps up. That PTA can be a travel assistant making 5k a week. Think about it.
The trick with a PHD is the following Go with one's that pays you money and pays your tuition, not a loan. As that implies that it has actual value worth doing economically speaking. Also your work has value you should be compensated for it. Go with ones that give you direct industry contacts and industry experience. Extremely useful if you come from a socioeconomic background where you don't have access to that. Go with ones that are broad and gives you skills in a lot of areas rather than a narrow one. That will not give you that much training or exp. Go for at least a top twenty uni that has name recognition. To note I am in the Uk so loans from undergrad only really adds up to around 50K or if your scottish add up to only cost of living or Wales under 30k. Also get written of if not fully paid in 30 years and only need to be paid if you earn above a certain amount of money so is just a secondary income tax at most. America does it's population dirty with loans tbh. . .
Well, reality is top academia are very competitive and it could take years before getting the admission whereas mid range academia can provide you with opportunities to get into the door. Also, not all top professors or students are found in top academia, this is like saying top notch restaurants always have the best chefs or top line fashion stores have best merchandise and customer service. I finished my master's at a mid range university and compared my dissertation against one completed by a student from a top academia, the latter was so flat and I would fail if I submitted similar work. To my surprise that student got a distinction for that crappy dissertation. So, you get the point.
I think mid range supply is the worst. If supply will be high, industries will start pick and chose and the value will increase significantly how it happened for Masters degree. There will be more structured PhD program, and people start graduating in 3-4 years. Low supply will also be good because everyone can be academic. In mid-range supply, neither academia absorbs all of them, nor industries have enough talent pool for pick and choose.
The social contract that used to motivate Ph.D. students has been entirely violated by industry and academia. The reward/work ratio is much too low. And the proliferation of cheap and easy “Ph.D.” programs have cheapened the title irreparably.
Considering an academic career, I was told that you can secure an academic position at the tier level or below where your PhD was earned. So, yes, top tier is a good idea. Also, please read "so long and thanks for the PhD"
![What PhD students find out too late [Top mistakes]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EZk0CFf0UV4/mqdefault.jpg)
![What PhD students find out too late [Top mistakes]](/img/tr.png)
![Things you don't say out loud in academia [9 open secrets]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sgAlFPMugWw/mqdefault.jpg)
I did my PhD just to do it. Had nothing to do with career or seeking an academic position. I just like living for the pursuit of knowledge.
That is why I am doing mine. Plus my company is paying for it. Really, I am just sacrificing time. I would rather waste my time with education than watching TV or playing videogames. /Shrug
To be honest, that's the mature way of looking at it. Those who do if for the pursuit of knowledge usually complete it. Compared to those who see the $$ signs at the end.
Same.
My employment and salary prospects were already very strong with a Master's degree in Physics.
A PhD opens the door to future academic roles, some industry R&D roles, and maybe a shorter path to senior positions at data, fintech and Dev companies, but I don't care about most of that.
l'm doing a PhD in Astrophysics because I want to personally contribute something to our collective knowledge of the universe.
Maybe I'll want to further pursue academia after my PhD, but I think I'll be satisfied with my contributions by means of a few research papers and a PhD thesis.
This used to be the only reason to get a PhD. Now that they made a deploma a job requirement they oddly became less valuable.
How stupid. What's the point if you're not going to use it for some practical goal or to make more money.
I’m currently pursuing my PhD (4th year). I never intended to enter the professoriate. I’d been weighing the pros and cons for applying for about 8 years prior to applying and what pushed me was a realization that, in life, we tend to regret the things that we don’t do more than the things that we do. Although it’s tough, I am happy that I made the jump.
Recently doctorated in Material Science. My thesis was on thin films, I do now make DRAM memories in industry. Is PhD valuable? Yes. Helped? Yes. I could have done the same job with my master? Absofuckilutely. Did I regret to go on PhD path? Yes. 25K in salary more as entry position but... 5 years with 30K salary, plus mental pressure and grown anxiety. I could have entered at age 25 in industry, and in 5 years i'd earned way more, with a 9-5 job. Phd was 24/7 never stop. If I come back in time to my 20s i'll slap my face.
I dropped PhD in CS after 2 years realising that the ROI is just not there. If I ever need a PhD for my carreer I can always come back and with the gained industry experience I can do it in 2 years.
@@martink5391 i feel you. In my case due to the Visa I had to continue. I wish i had the balls to take the second master and leave using the opt from there. At least I've no debt...
My tutor has a PhD in computer science and he's 23.I still can't fathom how you could be that knowledgeable and be so young,I think getting a PhD is a magnificent achievement 👍
That’s very impressive I’m curious how are this person’s social skills?
He's cool bro👍
He was more than likely a child genius.
You can graduate high school very early since 60% of school is useless fluff.
What job is he doing now?
Thank you for sharing your insights, Andy!
I've given up the idea of having a permanent job, like a university tenure, a long time ago. I'm not saying I won't settle down on a good offer. I'm just saying that I focus on self-growth which can also come with changing roles/jobs. It's doable as long as you have careful financial planning for yourself and your dependents.
One of my professors told me to not expect a good job market after completing my PhD, to which I responded, "It's ok. I know."
I have many years of industry experience, and I'm returning to academia (as a PhD research fellow) this year because I want the kind of research training provided in the university. I have several ideas for my postdoc research; I hope I can finalize one of them to apply for a research grant (in collaboration with an experienced researcher) at the end of my PhD period. Meanwhile, I'll monitor the development of the industry of my field, and maybe pick up one or two new relevant skills, so that if I can't get a postdoc, I can work in the industry again.
Life is fun when you're comfortable with uncertainties :)
7:30 is so accurate I had to chuckle thinking about my supervisor posing for pictures next to my experiment.
I'm a PhD student myself. The issue of supply and demand is on point. The supply of PhD student, maybe for fields like physics, chemistry, bio are a bit too high. The demand for PhD student, i.e., the tenure track job is low. Then, PhD students are trapped in the endless cycle of postdocs. I see another issue: some PhD in these fields worked on too specific/narrow subjects. It might be hard for the students to transition to outside options, such as industry. The industry also thinks the same thing.
It's why you have to look at a PHD in respect to what skills you are learning and what contacts you are getting. It needs to be broad so what you learn can be applied in many different situations.
So I went to industrial PHDs as they teach how to bridge the gap between academia and industry and offers industry placements and gives me industry contacts and I chose one which is a very profitable industry.
Then their is skills, my project mixes microbiology, agronomy, epidemiology, field trials, epigenetics, sociology, statistics and toxicology.
@@ecos889hey your work sounds so interesting and I'm currently applying to micro phds. If you see this thread lmk id love to talk more about your work
Well I think if you are in the public sector (e.g., public health, government, university) a PhD can open a lot of doors for someone. There are a lot of positions if you want to achieve an associate director or higher you need to have a PhD even though the job position doesn't explicitly state that. As of now I am working on my second masters degree and debating on whether a PhD would be worth it--but it might if it means that I can get to the higher levels within my own field. For instance, in a recent job interview the executive director suggested that I should consider getting a doctorate as its clear that I am a "life long learner" and could truly benefit from obtaining it. We shall see :)
Unfortunately, there has been an overproduction of PhD’s in some disciplines.
Agreed we need more science and engineering types. The law, gender studies, and social sciences not so much. I think those fields right in public forums are making the rest of the college community look very foolish as if late.
I have a Ph.D. from a mid-level university, I've been a college professor since the late 1980s, I also spent a bunch of years as a department chairman at a mid-level university, in the US and I've had about twenty PhD students and I've seen how their careers have progressed. My former students have ended up in the pharmaceutical industry, in academia, and in the FDA. All the same, I agree with most of what you say here. In life sciences most of the jobs for BS and MS degrees suck. In life sciences a PhD degree with an excellent publication record is impressive even if you are from a mid-range university. But with a PhD from a top rate university you get the benefit of the doubt even with fewer good pubs. So you're right, the deck is a little bit stacked. I also spent a sabbatical year at Harvard and saw first-hand how students and postdocs from there ended up, as well as my own career trajectory after that year. To be fair it's incredibly difficult to be accepted into a graduate program at a place like Harvard, and I was blown away by the quality of the graduate students that they have there.
The Universities do not monitor the career trajectories of their PhDs. So these post docs come and go
and you never see a lot of them again. In Med School I noticed my school monitored careers and match percentage and made decisions on their research into the careers of their graduates. And I think the big shots in Science want to keep things this way. Lots of high tech slaves with no rights.
Could you go into more detail about what type of qualifications/traits/characteristics the Harvard students had
@@kimw12394 I should start by saying that getting into a particular area of research is a bit like learning a new language and you progress in stages. Initially one's knowledge of the literature and one's ability to make really creative inferences from what you're reading is a bit limited but as you become more and more familiar with the literature the depth of your knowledge increases, you are able to make more complex arguments etc. Some people can make that progression faster than others. It just seemed to me that the Harvard students that I met (and I got to know about seven of them very well in the Department of Neurobiology, admittedly a relatively small sample) seemed to be at a remarkably advanced level of understanding relative to the time that they had been in graduate school. This is compared to the students that I have known well, including my own, at the two mid-level universities where I have spent my faculty career. Admittedly, the Harvard sample is much smaller. Another thing I noticed is that there was a culture at Harvard where students tended to spend more time in the lab, and they hung around together a bit more, and often seem to discuss science more often amongst themselves. Another element I noticed is that all of the Harvard students had extensive laboratory experiences as undergraduates and for the most part seem to have pretty well developed manual skills. The best of them seem to have a depth of understanding comparable (at the very least) to very good senior postdocs, ironically sometimes better than the postdocs I knew well at Harvard. I have had a handful of students with some of those traits at my own universities, but all of the ones that I knew at Harvard were like that. It really all comes down to a program's applicant pool, the more people apply to a program the more selective they can afford to be.
@@kimw12394 I did my PhD and postdoc in universities like this, not exactly Harvard but similar, and I would say it's like this.
The graduate students had perhaps 2-4 years of research experience as undergraduates, so they could hit the ground running. They were also largely mentored by a senior grad student or postdoc during this time, so they have had a lot of one-on-one development by then. They also did well in their classes, so they have a decent grasp of the basics. They are typically self-motivated, and competitive.
But that's not even the most important part, imo. The most important part is the culture, where:
1. There's a relatively high wash-out rate within the first 1-2 years, usually coinciding with the Qual deadlines but not always. It's not exactly correct to say that those who wash out are "inferior," because all sorts of real-life problems can cause this.... eg., medical/psychological condition, traumatic experience, sudden family change (like unexpected birth or death in the family), a work change (getting a job offer or other opportunity that you can't refuse), etc. But a certain number do also quit after deeming themselves unfit to continue, or after being "strongly encouraged" by their advisor or the department to do so.
2. The advisors are super A-type personalities with extremely high demands and expectations. Granted, this can be true anywhere, but usually the PIs at these top 5's got where they are by being even more intense than usual.
3. There are LOTS of students who fall between the cracks, but because the others are doing exciting work these noes who fall through are kind of swept under the rug and never discussed again. This is especially true because these top universities have lots of mega-groups with 30+ people at a time. This can happen for a lot of reasons, but probably the biggest factor is inadequate self-motivation. In a group of that size, you have to be self-motivating because no one's going to look over your shoulder and see how you are doing (until it's too late and you bomb your annual group meeting). Another factor can be equipment rationing. Maybe a student who is too quiet and doesn't speak up for themselves gets squeezed out of a vital experiment and just kind of atrophies away over years. The ones who fall between the cracks either eventually glide into a low-pass PhD, or detach from the program along the way.
---
The best thing you could do for yourself, as a mid-tier university graduate student trying to break into academia (tenure-track) or government, is publish-publish-publish. The name won't open doors, but your publication record does not lie. Don't pursue idle research interests, or coast and just take a project as it comes (beyond your first project, since at that point you won't have enough context to know what's exciting anyway). Pursue what's publishable as rapidly as possible, with the biggest impact possible. Then do it again and again and again. Don't pursue projects just because they personally excite you, if they won't make a big splash or be doable in a short time. Don't tackle so on many things simultaneously that you can't sit down and write manuscripts, or so few that if 1-2 things fail you're dead in the water. Don't rely on big gambles on blue-sky ideas to aim for Nature and Science papers, if failure means no publication at all. Don't stubbornly pursue something that you know won't work just because of sunken time costs; rather, know when to shut down a project and choose a more fruitful one. Overall, just do as much publishable work as possible and let the Science papers come from shocking surprises you see on the lab bench, rather than ideas you constructed from scratch (unless those are quick to pursue and publish, in which case go for it!). That way, you have the fall-back option of "just" having a lot of papers even if nothing Science-level happens, which is already a great position to be in. Meanwhile, blue sky ideas don't often work anyway, and what really generates high-end papers is trying lots of stuff and seeing what sticks. If there's a Gaussian curve for result quality, and the top 0.5% are worthy of a major publication, you're more likely to find one of these simply by sampling more frequently.
If you try enough things, some of them are bound to be in the top levels of excitement. The challenge at that point is to be prepared enough, in terms of background reading and undersatnding your community and so forth, to actually capitalize on that opportunity when it appears in the data. There won't be an alarm that sounds when a Nature-quality result appears. It will just be a curve or a data point on your monitor, or an unusually shaped precipitate in your solution, just another one of the last thousand you measured, and it will be up to you recognize that this particular data point is special and understand why.
---
As for getting into industry, if you can manage it, a great strategy would be to still publish-publish-publish, so you can get your foot in the door of a top university as a postdoc or visiting scholar. Then industry comes to you. At big-name universities, there are regularly representatives of everything from investment banking and consulting firms, to aerospace, data science, top car brands, chip manufacturers, etc., just setting up booths in the building and passing out recruitment fliers to anyone who walks by with a lab notebook in hand. And even if you are sending out applications cold, all they will likely notice is the name on the letterhead, which is where your postdoc is.
If that is not an option, look for PIs with personal connections to the sector you want to join. Maybe they coauthored papers with someone in the national lab you want to work at, or they have demonstrated a pipeline of past students into particular companies you're interested in. Sometimes smaller-name universities remain competitive by becoming extremely specialized in a particular sub-field, and are well-known within that sub-field. Research if that is the case for your sector of interest, and try to postdoc there.
If you're not interested in a particular sector, but just want good employment somewhere, consider non-traditional paths as well. A lot of my cohort from graduate school ended up going into stuff like non-profits, administrative, entrepreneurship, data science, politics, law, teaching at the grade school level. Stuff like this doesn't rely so much on your publication record, and in many cases on the the prestige of your university.
I totally relate, thank you Andy. PhDs seem largely undervalued because designed to train professional academics, for the most part. Highly technical domains would benefit more from pursuing a PhD (e.g. data science, some advanced engineering, medical, etc). My domain is urban planning / human geography. I got my PhD at a former polytechnic in the North-East (England), doing a sort of market review of digital software in urban planning. So the PhD was fairly applied, looking at emerging market trends and opportunities for tech adoption across local government. I also have two master degrees and a bachelor degree from some of the very top universities in Europe. Although I have always networked extensively even as a Master student, I somehow failed to observe most academics work 60+ hours, with lots of 'volunteering' required (peer-reviewing journal articles; grant funding applications; informal mentoring in domain-specific networks, board meetings; doing major corrections for submitted journal manuscripts; etc).
However, it seems more of a liability to be highly educated when seeking work in industry, where all that seems to be required of candidates is to tick the right corporate boxes and adopt companies' systems and procedures without asking too many of the practical questions that interest industry-focused researchers. Also, AI-driven job board application systems that can filter out some of the most desirable candidates even if you mention all the right keywords. Government grant-funding for research and postdoc positions in anything remotely connected to my area of research are fiercely competitive across Europe. Also, covid-recovery and austerity means government might not be as keen to hire as they used to. All things considered, academics also seem to earn much less than senior industry professionals. Also, it seems transferable skills from academia transfer well to other academic settings, then to industry.
But as highlighted in the video, I did learn tons personally and connected with great people. Career-wise, though, perhaps I could have spent that time learning more data and computing as developers and analysts are in high demand across Europe, especially at senior level.
PHD Stands for piling higher and deeper, no one gives a shit outside academia about your pieces of paper only what you can do to advance their business
Agreed, at the end of the day business is needed and value needs to be created.
I was shocked by how low the salary numbers were for PhDs in Math and Computer Science. Many of the software engineers I know make way over this and some of them don't even have a 4-year degree. They are just really good at getting things done with high quality and customer focus.
withing the software field talking in general, having a degree is useless, you want certifications in programming, leadership, they are hugely more important than the degree itself
@@rewrite1239 okay buddy. like people don't have to go through multiple rounds and study leetcode. you especially don't want to identify on resume any extra information beyond your experience because of bias.
Depends what field of maths - if you become a Quant or Data scientist its name your own salary time, if its an area thats theoretical and over subscribed then salary will be low.
To be fair real world programming differs drastically from what they teach in university, so a fresh CS bachelor is pretty much of the same value as a fresh PHD to most companies.
@@rewrite1239 Strange, since studies generally show the complete opposite. Black graduates who whiten their names and hide their racial identity get more job officers on average.
I believe you're on the spot with this Andy. We reached that point years ago with persons holding a masters degree. Whereas it was sufficient to indicate you held a post graduate degree ... it then became a critical differentiator to state WHERE you did your post graduate degree. Invariably, we ae quickly reaching that point on PhD holders. This is being exacerbated with Universities wishing to churn out post graduate students even though the quality and rigour is weak. While undermining the University and academia as a whole, the short-term metrics being imposed by University Administrators - predominantly financial and #of students - appear to fuel this practice. Higher ranked Universities, more so ones with deep pockets, can afford less emphasis on those metrics. Further, the cost of education for non-resident persons has galloped into the realms of the ridiculous.
As a former grad student myself, I can tell you that the grad student population is full of people who are putting off getting a real job. They didn’t know what research was, they didn’t do internships while they were undergrads, and they don’t have any other opportunities available in their chosen fields. It’s either grad school or retail. So, they choose grad school. It’s not clear to me that most of us belonged in grad school because our advisors gave us research questions and declared the definitive interpretations of data. We were little more than lab technicians. But, if you stick it out and work for them, they’ll eventually give you a degree… of dubious value. The graduate never had to prove the ability to ask a worthy research question in the first place or solve it. Capitalism has nothing to do with this, unless you want to say that academic advisors are parasitic bosses.
I do like that you made a distinction between getting a degree anywhere versus getting a degree with an industrial affiliation. That’s what you really need at the undergraduate level, too: summer internships learning a real job. Then, you should take what you learned back to college the next year and do some research that can be tested the following summer. Then, in your senior year, you can write up a bachelors or master thesis about this work. That’s how you prove you can do private (or government) work. Completing a major or grad degree at any level is only proof that you might be a decent trivial pursuit player-not that the graduate is useful.
This is a very interesting discussion and a much-needed conversation
I'm fine with my bachelor's degree for a software development career. Academic background have been important to my employers, but mainly that I have some theoretical background, methodology and general scientific critical thinking. Considered getting a master but realized that all advanced skills I would need can be found in trade schools. I don't care to do research, which academia is for after all.
As a final year PhD student who intends to finish in 3 years (UK system)- I would say, if you do end up doing a phd, do it for selfish reasons. It's a degree like any other degree, don't be sentimental about it, take advantage of travel opportunites, training courses and learn as much in your first and second year and get out asap. If a project is not going well by the 15 month, get out. If young (26 or young), find new mentors. Don't worry about a perfect thesis, worry about a done thesis. I also worked before this and learned where the gaps were in my field and wanted to use the PhD and the skills to create a niche for myself that I can monetize on. If you can do it while young, it is best. Whatever you do - find out ways to make a return on your investment (go into consultancy if all else fails). Sell, sell and sell yourself, use it to be a better speaker, attend career guidance talks, meet new people, grow yourself, use what you learn to uplift your community, and inspire young kids. Above all, have a growth mindset, and don't be a jerk just cos you have a Ph.D. Your general knowledge will have declined by the time you are done.
I’m studying quantum computing and doing a PhD right now is essential to get a high paying industry job in the field because it primarily requires you to work in research and development. Id say it’s not worth it to do a PhD unless: you have a passion for your specific field and studying it as a career is your dream, or you simply need the degree to get the sort of job you want (which is my scenario).
In tech, many of the brightest choose to work instead of doing a PhD. Your ideas and personality are far more important than whether you went to an Ivy league or not.
Another issue in the tech world is what new and exciting, and gets published, changes quickly. When I finished my Masters in Comp Sci years ago database where the big thing. So, I would have likely focused on some aspect of that in my PhD. Now, few care and Machine Learning is going to save world. Next????
For biotech the industry is growing rapidly and the PhD is great for R&D
I completed my PhD in industrial Engineering and Computational Applied Mathemarics. Most of my research was solving applied problems for the sector I planned to work in and sponsored by NSF, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and so forth. I also did consulting while completing the curriculum. Mind you, I already had an MS in Mech-Aero Engineering and professional work experience. I picked up my P.E. license along the way and my TS clearence. I am currently a Project Lead Engineer, and hopefully in route for the Chief Engineer of my division. I would say, to me getting a PhD is great...depending what it entails and what you do or have done along the way while completing it, and how that would benefit you in the long run.
Very helpful insight, thank you! As someone considering graduate school, it helps to hear from someone who has done it before and is willing to speak honestly about it
I would also like to add that I think you are correct in the sense that obtaining a PhD from a top university will get the most exposure, however, I also think that it depends on the area of business or academia that you obtain the PhD. Just my thoughts! I'm glad I found your channel.
I'm just finishing my PhD (I've got my viva next month) and although it was at a mid-range university, I think the thing I can show best to employers is that during my study I put out three papers in internationally recognised journals. This essentially means I have documented the progress through my study at a clearly recognisable professional level, with external peer review, and even for someone unfamiliar with the process of getting a PhD it can act as a portfolio of work and that is inherently valuable. I'd strongly encourage all PhD students to be publishing during, helps as a way of writing up as you go for your thesis too.
I am doing a PhD in the UK in a mid tier University. I priorly worked in the corporates and didn't like that. Thought I would like research and enrolled for a PhD but I am very unhappy and dissatisfied with that too. Unable to write a critical literature review even after an entire year since enrollment. I am not sure, what I should do now.
Ahhh ... you've made some points that I have made or that I have heard you make in the past.
First, anyone even considering a PhD has to think about where they want to go with their careers. Do they actually need one? Are there other options? Do you have a chance to go into either industry or academia with this degree? And so on. I think it would help anyone to speak to their guidance counselors and career counselors before even coming into undergraduate university. As you have said time and time again, if you do not have a good, specific plan with your goals, you are in trouble. That the PhD has not been, for some time now, a landing spot toward being hired or going directly into academia. It is now just the price of admission.
Second, unfortunately if someone is going for a degree in the liberal arts/humanities, good luck finding a job. It is way too over-saturated as it is, with no academic jobs really available. I can remember watching a series from an English literature professor talking about how to couch your PhD in English to become an underwriter for an insurance company or other such things. However, there is a problem in the business world. Why would I hire anyone with that sort of degree instead of hiring someone who already has some experience in the business world or more specifically already has done this sort of job before?
Third, speaking of academic jobs, yes, for the last few decades, it has been known that if you did not go to a prestigious enough university for your PhD, it will be very difficult for you to be acknowledged or hired for academia. So you have to be, as you say, "very clever", with internships, undergraduate research, and high GPAs as well as high entrance exam scores, to be able to get into that sort of university. However, it is also having the insight that going into a PhD in these places is extremely cutthroat competitive to get into the university in the first place, let alone stay there once you get there.
Fourth, it is hard to say how much scientific advancements will be made into the future from the university and PhD level. Why do I say this? I am reminded of a quote from a famous academic talking about the "Visible or Vanish" problem. He said something like, "If the 'publish or perish' phenomenon was around in 1964, I, and my team would never have come up with our theory. There would not be enough time to develop it." And who said it?
Professor Higgs.
If the professor that changed the standard model of subatomic particles is saying academia has a problem, then ... YES, academia has a problem!
And lastly, yes, as dkcarey mentioned, it is about getting more undergraduates into university and getting more graduate students into a PhD program simply based on economics alone. As bad as this sounds, what many students are doing is not preparing for a career or to have any marketable success getting through a PhD (even though some disciplines are easier to do). No. Sadly, all these people are doing is essentially paying the salary for the professors already there. Not only are you doing their work for them (being in the lab, teaching a class, doing their research, grading papers, and so on), but it almost does not matter if you complete a PhD or not. They will soon replace you in any event to keep the money flowing.
Worse, yes, Google and other places in the Information Age has somewhat ruined the master's and PhD. In the past, you had to learn how to write. How to use a dictionary and thesaurus. How to have proper grammar. How to use the Card Catalog System in the library. Actually reading the books, journals, and letters from this scientist or that writer. Now, everything is at your fingertips and some bit of reasoning and "old-school" like research has gone by the wayside. And sorry, I am showing my age a bit in noting, "I remember a world without people having personal computers!" But the point still stands.
So, at times, it goes back to what you mentioned a month ago or so ...
Academia/PhD can be seen as a scam, as a "highway robbery".
And so you really have to be sure as to what you are doing with your life and how to get there.
Thank you for all of your work, Dr. Stapleton.
I agree on some very valid points that you have made. I don't have time to go into all of them at this time, however, the point concerning the effect of technology on the brain. There is truly an impact that has occurred. I too can recall a time without computers but once they hit it was like wildfire! Having working in the arena of Information Technology for over 20 years I can understand and reflect on the times when noun-verb agreement was a must. Anyway, now that I am a little more ripe (mature). I am seriously thinking about going back to my first real reason for going to college. I will divulge that at a later time.
I earned a Doctorate of Nursing Practice in anesthesia, I originally earned a BS in medicinal chemistry (bio chemistry) and wanted to pursue a PhD in biochemistry but from what I’ve learned about pharmacology through application and from going through the nurse anesthetist program, I’m very satisfied with the knowledge I obtained and my background still allows me to conduct research in my spare time, so for me a PhD would be just an expensive paperweight. The fact that I’m able to apply my knowledge in a medical setting and also participate in research, makes it the best of both worlds for me and the pay is not bad either.
Depends on what you do with it. Everyone I know who has a PhD works at a university or writes.
Probably less useful in the workforce unless you're in R&D at a large company. Generally PhDs will have to compete with people who have more work experience doing the day to day tasks.
For the increase in number of PhDs awarded 1958-2020, two major factors stand out to me.
First, the US population has almost doubled in that time, from 174m to 331m.
In 1958, around 50 PhDs were awarded per million citizens.
In 2020, that rose to around 166 per million.
A 90% increase in population in that interval means the expected PhDs per million in 2020 by 1958 standards should be around **95 per million**.
Secondly, in 1958 only around 10% of PhDs awarded in the USA across all fields were awarded to women.
Academia wasn't very accessible to women in that time. a 90/10 split meant that women only had around 1/9th the opportunity of men. As a first order approximation, a 50-50 split seems reasonable. Of course popularity and number of available/required PhDs varies with field, so 50-50 is not likely the true "perfect" split, but it's likely much closer than 90-10.
If 1958 numbers were picked from a population consisting of all men, but only 1/9th of capable women, it's not unreasonable to expect that the remaining 8/9ths of the female population have since got to a point where PhDs are accessible to them. There is very little preventing women from getting PhDs nowadays.
So, if 1958 numbers were made up of 10/18 of the population, and we expect today's numbers to represent the whole population, we multiply the **95 per million** (expected in 2020 by 1958 standards) by 1.8 (to get from 10/18 to 18/18 of the total population), and we get...
**171 expected PhDs per million in 2020**. Compare that to the actual number of 166 per million...
As a first-order approximation with two simple factors accounted for (in simplistic ways, I admit), we've already over-accounted for the increase in PhDs awarded between 1958-2020.
Basically, it's reasonable to claim that standards haven't changed.
The population of people who can earn PhDs has changed, in two ways - by both overall population growth, as well as by eliminating barriers for women to pursue PhDs.
thats is a very good point, was thinking along he same lines ;)
And people with disabilities, and differing racial backgrounds, and poor people, and ....... if we DONT want to value thinking - there might be a long term issue.....
The expected PHDs by 1958 standards is 50 per million. You only increase the number if there was already some sort of upward trend you are including. The amount of X per Y doesn't increase with the increasing of Y, it decreases if X doesn't increase in proportion.
I feel like getting your PhD is like getting your black belt, A black belt does not mean you’re done does that mean you’ve accomplished some big thing it means that you have acquired all of the basic skills to begin applying those basic skills in a coordinated fashion towards an intent or means to an end. PhD only means that you are rigorously train that you have developed some “new” Metaphysical construct which is hoping to add utility function to not just yourself to other constructs as well. it’s amazing that you got a PhD great, you’re not getting a PhD for other people you’re not getting a PhD because society says it’s impressive you’re not getting a PhD because of any of these other reasons you go get a PhD and you’re getting a PhD because it is a dedication to rigorous minded logical training being able to rigorously be able to understand that you have developed some thing rigorously, that is there because of your existence. It’s unwise to do things because of other people or other systems. PhD only is a communal recognition that you have spent enough hours on rigorous that your application of rigorous coincides with the communal understanding of rigorous. And that view has been derived from something tangible. Instead of magic. It’s all about meaning and purpose!!!
Returning to school for a masters in biomedical engineering - for the pursuit of knowledge. I’ve worked for over a decade, paid off all my loans, excited to reorient my career (undergrad is chemical/environmental engineering)! PhD is not worth it for me at this point in my life.
The preference for cheap labor may also contribute to the waning demand for PhDs.
I studied Physics. I can tell you that there's a lot of content in a PhD. You definitely learn a lot more doing a PhD than working at a company. That being said, the whole academic system today is based on exploitation. I have no intention of furthering a system where some highly cited researchers control nearly all resources to the field with near zero accountability while exploiting young people and postdocs in a scheme which in any other situation would be called human trafficking.
I am pretty happy working at a bank, it's a much more ethical business, and I would only consider going back to academia once I can fund what I want to study without using the system we currently have.
Banking a more ethical business? 🤔
@@griesjm Yes, what most people in academia don't realize about banking is that most of the work is in compliance checks, risk assessment, etc., making sure that people don't scam others. Compare it to crypto where people are scammed and others lose their life savings all the time, and you'll see that banking does contribute to society. Meanwhile, when I was in physics, it was all just a stupid game where people were trying to publish inane papers in prestigious journals just to outadvertise their competitors. If this is not meaningless speculation with taxpayers money, I don't know what is.
The thing is the demand is very small for PhDs if going for most jobs/careers. If you were very rich it would be extremely rewarding to just research what you enjoyed. The really ugly truth is professors often are constantly going after funding, our most successful one spent 90% of his time doing just that.
Nice point. Yes, one should not do it, just for a career as there's little demand for such a qualification. If you do have research topics, then it's a good idea to explore it on your own. Or with the appropriate funding. That said, if you want to serve your country in terms of policy-making, then doing a Ph.D definitely makes sense too. Again, as is obvious, it's not for everyone, as the numbers reveal!
6:48 these words are truth, sadly professors sometimes are not intersested in the student's future career, because they are more into making intellectual and monetary profit from student's research. A good professor should be interested more in his students growth which means to care even about his students future careers both in academia or industry
2014, I applied for PhD, wrote a research statement and everything. Never went to the interview. Best decision I ever made.
On the question of "who benefits the most" really comes down to the field you are in. I can certainly see it being. the case that the PI benefits the most from a student doing work in their lab for something like Chemistry or Automotive Engineering, but in mathematics, students are a constant time sink. I could probably finish my students' projects in a fraction of the time it takes them to get their head around the problem. In this setting, it's much more about mentoring the students and guiding them through the research, which takes a lot of time. I am sure to fund them so that they don't have to be a TA the whole time, but it's really more work to have students than not.
I will only do a PhD if it's paid for. I love learning but I'm not going into any further debt for it after I finish up my MFA.
I got my PhD 10 years ago and have over 60 publications. I could get a PhD again in about 18 months by publishing 3 papers topped and talked by a literature review and epilogue. The level and requirement these days is through the floor.
I think in biology and research focused careers it's absolutely needed, what you think ?
Is the graph of earned doctorates scaled for population growth though?
PhD seems difficult. I respect those who dedicate their knowledge. I have my Masters and I’m happy with that. :)
I would say that the problem is related to the need to lower the threshold for what constitute “original work” otherwise there would be virtually no new PhDs. This does not make the work less valuable, it just means that the big, flashy discoveries (as perceived by the world outside academia) do not come as often and instead tend to be more derivative (shoulders of giants and all that).
Good video ive finished my 1st year phd and have 3 left
i like this video because it is the other side of it
alot of the things you have meintioned I was aware of it before my phd because i took a break after my masters for 6yrs to get some work experience in research ive already decided not to prusue a academic career and i want to work as a researcher or project manager for the GOVT or NGO
Im doing my phd because its something i want to do its on my bucket list and i love my topic. I also think it will benefit me in the longrun in my career
I got a PHD in my pants. Took me about 15 years but I got it and I’m proud
Dear Andy, could you perhaps create a video on why PhD students get kicked out their programs and what you can do in such a case
I've wondered this but for another reason. Colleges are coming up with positions such as "you're not allowed to grade papers based on grammar because its racist", and other things to lower the bar (ie Stanford dropping the Greek or Latin requirement from its classics program), I wonder who we're doing a service to. Many freshly graduated PhDs conduct themselves in a such a way that I find it hard to believe they've moved past an undergrad degree. This even includes many from Ivy league schools. You look at their PhD dissertation and the quality of work makes you question how any committee passed it. Makes you wonder if its a great scam with university costs going up. Lower the bar and put as many PhDs rubber stamped through the assembly line to collect tuition, grants, and/or free labor? Look at the PhDs being produced today vs even the 90's or early 2000s. Makes one wonder.
@dkcarey I can only speak for my own field (Linguistics), but the PhDs being produced now are generally much more empirically impressive than those produced even just 15 years ago (more advanced methodologies, more advanced statistics, more data --generally more serious scientific work)
I sincerely hope I’m wrong and totally off base, but what I’ve seen has said otherwise. Are the both of you outside of America? Maybe that’s part of the difference.
@@dkcarey1 I'm not in America. At my university the bar keeps getting raised higher and higher. It's much harder now than before to even get a Masters much less a PhD
I'm doing my PhD in bio-analytical chemistry now. My grandfather coincidentally was also a chemist. He did his PhD in the early 50s. Frankly, his dissertation was not very impressive; I could have done all the measurements he did during my master's degree but he still ended up being a successful entrepreneur after defending. My aunt became a successful virology professor her thesis written in the 90s was good but hardly groundbreaking work. Her finest hours came during her post doc. My father was a successful theoretical physicist but partied more than he worked. He is old now but still brags about having binge-drinked the night before his reclassification exam. Back then PhDs were never more than 4 years. Most of my colleagues today are in it for at least 6 years with luck. People often confuse lowering of academic standards for over-production of PhDs. We are also over-producing undergraduates mind you. The argument could be made that we are producing more PhDs than is actually needed but PhDs are about as hard as they were 50 years ago. It's still years of hard gruelling work for no immediate material reward. I'd argue a PhDs today are much harder: they are longer, less career prospects, more likely to leave you in debt and less funding than 20 years ago. If 21st century PhD doesn't create good scientists, it certainly creates good cockroaches that can survive more hostile conditions than before and thrive in the face of adversity.
@@nicolasgrinberg1996 Are you sure though you aren't looking at that through today's lens? We can often see things that are considered in today's light as given or no-brainers, but were not necessarily givens when written about. I'll take one from the computer field. Back in the early 2000s you could write a paper describing how you could potentially run operating systems in a virtual environment, having many different operating systems/servers on one physical piece of hardware. If we were to look at it today we would think of it as very simple as everything is virtualized now, however at the time it was against "common wisdom" and many people laughed at the thought, thinking it would be more of an amusement then for actual "real" workloads if you got it working. That's not to say there aren't exceptions to the rule. I don't dispute that we're over-producing undergraduates, and question many of those programs as well. I was considering 2 different PhD programs and another doctorate program, each pretty much gave an estimate of between 3-5 years, but thats only a sample size of 3. But thinking now, most of the PhDs and dissertations I've been disappointed in have not been in hard sciences. Would you say there has been a change in quality in PhDs if you exclude hard sciences? Creates good cockroaches hahaha, I literally laughed out loud for that :)
I work in education. I have a masters in political theory and decided not to pursue a PhD in political philosophy due to a lot of external reasons that had nothing to do with passion. I am getting a PhD in education policy . If I don’t get an academic job, I know that the degree is necessary to work in central office administration eventually. So I feel confident about my choice. Fingers crossed I get my dream job! I have been working hard on my CV.
Watching this video makes me realize that I really appreciate going to a research university (undergrad). The labor is still cheap but the professors head their own research labs here and it's the professors you ask if you want to work in a lab
1 in 50 have a PhD in the UK? I find that mind blowingly high. The main thing going for a PhD which I believe is universally true, is that it contributes to a stable, healthy self-identity that is extremely valuable when it comes to continuing our journey through life. Although there are cheaper options such as enrolling on an adult course connected with one's long term career development as you've pointed out many times in your previous videos.
Another parameter of success is the prominence of your Ph.D. advisor in your particular specialty. A well-respected mentor at a mid-level university can be very helpful in starting your academic career.
A great video❤️👌 Thank you!
Hey mate!
You are a smart man!
Yesterday I was talking to a friend about the dark side of the Universitism industry and I said this:
“I used to think smartness is about knowing a lot and being cognisant about the situation and the world. However, it appears to me that smartness is more about knowing enough about the situation and being able to spot where other parties are being cynical. When we fall for the beautiful future that the school and the uni paint for us to get our money, it means that we are not smart enough. I wonder if there is any national data in any country about how useless the uni degrees are and what portion of the graduates actually work in the fields that they have paid huge chunks of money to study.”
i don't know, part of me feels like this is the wrong question. i think the real value of a phd is in whether that individual is creating valuable knowledge in that particular field/topic; not because of any sort of income measurement
I have been thinking about this ALOT, 2 years into my PhD in mol. bio. I feel like I could have just gotten a master's degree, BUT money was a factor for me and I chose a PhD because it would be fully funded with a stipend vs a Master's degree (at least in the field i wanted) was not.
@Andrew That's just not true. Many companies actively seek PhD level employees, a person with PhD (and a post-doc) has much more experience that a MS (at least in US). I was only only looking for jobs hat wanted to hire PhDs, not to mention that salaries are higher as well.
@Andrew Well, I live a life with a PhD in science and I was actively searching for a job not too long ago, so I don't have to imagine anything cause I've already lived that. thanks
Make sure you want to work in the BioPharma/BioTech or Academia world. If so, you will advance faster with your degree, and potentially further than people without a PhD.
PhD never lost value in the first place, still top of the line in the academic and professional world
The whole job market was shafted to high heavens in the first place
And what value would that be? Because people see value in different ways. Aside from those teaching at Ivy League schools, I make more money than you’re average PhD and only have a Bachelors (though doing grad school now). So I doubt you mean monitory value. Maybe impact on society?
They used to only let the top 5% of students into university. When they changed that number to the top 30% (and that 25% couldn't hack it) they lowered the standards.
So now a PhD represents less qualified people and more of them than it used to - increased quantity and reduced quality = less value.
you still gotta network. But having a phd helps get you to do and makes friends with lots of college through out your college career.
Agree with all the points made in this video. However, the fact that there exists little to no recognition of PhDs in the industry, having a PhD seems like a road to endless suffering. Industry demands fresh workers with bachelor degrees or the ones coming with management experience (from industry). The experience and the skills of a PhD graduate are not considered and they are treated as overqualified fresh graduates. This means poverty, joblessness and overall misery for the highly educated people of the society. Universities and Professors are literally behaving like slave owners and treat postdocs like slaves. Even postdoc positions require fresh PhD students because they know older postdocs would demand stable jobs so, they have created a rotatory system of abuse whereby each postdoc is considered for 2-3 years and the next announcement of postdoc then requires a PhD within 3-5 years from the time of advertisement. This essentially leaves a lot of postdocs jobless and struggling to make their ends meet.
This toxic capitalistic academic empire must fall and the industry should recognize the PhD experience equivalent to senior management experience.
Whether a PhD is values depends on the field. In some, like BioPharma, it is hard to advance very far without a PhD and/or MD.
I finished my PhD (material science) myself in 2010 and tried to land a job in related industry ever since to no avail. I even started applying for a basic entry job e.g. lab assistant in the related industry and hoping to climb up the corporate ladder later on. Unfortunately there aren't many companies willing to accept PhD graduates for such entry level job. I changed my strategy and applied jobs without mentioning my PhD status. It landed me a job in the healthcare industries as a supervisor. I am pretty sure there are many PhD graduates that work in unrelated industry they are studying for. Just a couple years back for example, there was a news about PhD (social science) holder who worked as a security guard at Crown Casino. Despite all that , it is up to individual to decide whether or not getting PhD will add value to him/herself.
I have a different view on this where also school departs are starting to beef up ther practitioner level doc degrees to be as comprehensive and thorough as a Ph.D too
Masters holder chime in; PHD with no experience equals mop manager in my field. PHD with 20 plus year experience equals ready for c suite or senior leadership role with less required mid tier time in our field. But tech is it's own animal and a HS grad can be a PHDs equal in many ways. Bottom line, if it isn't ivy league, it ain't working for you without you working for it.
Not just ROI but also opportunity costs. For average people born in the developed world, in the time it takes to get a PhD, and there are no guarantees in terms of years required, one could have worked while young and accumulated enough wealth to kick start their investments and retire early. You have to be really passionate about your discipline and be willing to compete with the best and brightest to make the most of a PhD, and then there is the post-doc or two, by that stage, your friends who became trades people, bus drivers or graduated in accounting, will most likely have an investment property or two, and a maybe a nice boat. Considering that humanity will expand to 11 billion in the coming decades, and brain power starts to decline after 30, the premiums once enjoyed by brains are very much under pressure from capital accumulation. If you are born rich, then just pass GO and set up a brand or have other people do all the hard work...
College degrees don't mean jack. You can hire someone with a bachelor's and they might be smarter and a harder worker than someone with a PHD.
losing value is questionable, but losing hair is for real.
In interesting topic would be, as AI is automating tasks and diminishing no-brain jobs, and space open up for more analytics job, how would that affect demand for high level academic degrees, and are universities well suited to fill that gap for the industry?
Because as AI growth, it may some day in near future, a AI assistant be a better teacher than an actual teacher, or an research assistant
Sure! I am with you. Although I am an employee + with a fully sponsored scholarship for a PhD in engineering, my salary is the lowest among my engineer colleagues with bachelor's degrees. 😇
One thing not mentioned here is the type of life that awaits you after the PhD. If you continue as (professional) researcher, your life will often have unstable job + moving around a lot (incl country or states) because there's so few places your interest/niche would be appreciated.
I'm don't have a PhD or doing one, only a masters degree, but I ended up in a industry research position that was originally looking for post doc. There's ways to get in to research without a PhD, although if you want to have a career in academia or work at top-level research institute (including industry) PhD is probably good to have.
Now if I want to continue doing research (change job) then again suddenly the potential employer are very few and limited in places.
Can you please advise a pathway for master by coursework student being admitted to PhD?
engineer here. phd is not needed most of time in real world, a 4 year degree engineer can do 95% of work, thats why phd usually gets paid same as bachelor graduate, and top of that, bachelor has 5-6 real world exp already by time phd graduates. and real world exp is far more valuable.
I am a professional engineer and work in bridge design. The reason the PhD is not treated as valuable is because the people in charge have bachelor's degrees. The people in charge decide how things are going to be done and this is based on what they themselves know. Do you think they will actually admit that the PhD is valuable? The most important thing to these people is getting on top and staying on top.
@@adrianalanbennett Maybe work for a company where the person in charge comes from research and has a PhD. Andrew Grove, former CEO of Intel had a PhD, even wrote a textbook. If you are at the level where you can write a textbook that is widely used, then you are a high caliber PhD.
Or start your own company, and just see exactly how valuable your PhD is in bringing value to the market. No need for some employer's opinion.
Hi Andy
What about supervisors? If you upscale your uni for a phd it goes against the advice of working with a supervisor you know. Unless you can be supervised by someone from a different university?
Absolutely correct
I'm a few months away from finishing my doctorate, and I agree, there is absolutely no good reason to pursue a Ph.D. unless you are going into medical research or some type of science field that requires a Ph.D. and Ph.D. level knowledge and expertise to do your daily job. I worked in industry for over a decade with a practical Master's degree and should have just stopped there. Listen to Andy, and do not waste your time pursuing a degree that is not going to get you any return on your mental, emotional, financial, and social investment.
A PHD is the perfect opportunity to get contacts especially if it's one that mixes with a private industry like my one which is with a Whisky company. So I am gathering contacts to guarantee myself a job at the end of it.
BS and MS in math here. I couldn't take the pain anymore so I didn't go for my PhD, chuckle chuckle.
Then I went into the real world and took the first job I could get because, you know, inflation is a mutha effer and I just needed a paycheck. Fifteen years into that career, not only did I NEVER use my math skills, but I also got fat as f**k sitting behind a monitor all day long.
Tho I did get very good at Word and Excel!
Don't be like me.
What I honestly think you are missing is that achieving a PhD does not mean you are smart or good. There are a lot of medium to bad PhD students, and those are usually the ones that struggle afterwards. Having a PhD comes with certain expectations on the job market. There are plenty of jobs for PhDs but obviously if a company spends >100k pa. they want good quality for the money, and not every student, just because they have a PhD, can offer this.
The way I see it, it's like the PhD has become the new Masters, the Masters the new Bachelors and the Bachelors the new High School Diploma, and no one has stopped to ask if that's a good thing.
I also question if maybe we should be focusing more on getting jobs and experience prior to terminal degrees, except for fields where you need the degree to operate. I see an alarming number of entry-level jobs inflating their requirements to require masters.
My professor, to whom I was an assistant, was also jealous of others who wanted to enroll in a Ph.D. 🤣🤣🤣
Considering that PhD's are just used as cheap labor (often cheap manual labor used to fill holes in underfunded lab budgets), it's not surprising that doing that for 4 to 6 years is considered less valued than working 4 to 6 years in a much more serious job. In industry you get to use the latest robots to save time and focus on the hard problems, as a PhD student you get to be the robot for 6 years, so your advisor can test his theories.
Ultimately people value you for the work you can do for them, and a specific type of work creates a certain amount of value.
The university system is very inefficient about getting people to be able to give value that is needed.
Was it ever valuable? I’ve always seen as a personal goal and achievement; I wouldn’t suggest doing a PhD unless you have a full scholarship
I appreciate yout thoughts, but I want to say that all this stuff must be analyzed differentiating the fields of research, for example I started my phd one years ago in Geology (in a mid-range level university in Italy) and talking to other students there is an abyss between geo and bio-med phd in terms of competition, communication between researchers, collegues and professors. In addition I think that statistics about what university is in the top position in rankings are quite useless if they consider parameters that are not consistent with your work or even if you compare small research groups but very specialized in some studies.
I'm submitting my PhD thesis in a couple of weeks and currently looking at what I will do afterward. I went into a PhD after working for a couple of years because I had questions that no one had answers for and I fiugured that if no one knew the answer well I should be the one to find it. Now that it's coming to an end, I don't know how I'll be able to value this degree in expertise outside of Academia. I already have a job that use the skillset that I developped during the PhD, but still the only requierement for the job was really to be familiar with the subject and have experience. The PhD wasn't required and as such isn't really valued. I had the chance to work full time while doing my PhD, but when I'm looking at potential next step and career path they are more interested in my work experience than the expertise of the PhD. It's really like "Oh you had a position in organization X, that's impressive! Oh you did your PhD while working there, that's nice I guess?"
The worst part is when talking with people from HR and some hiring managers who have absolutly no idea what to make from your degree or who consider that you are only a "student" and don't understand that a PhD is research work, not sitting studying in class doing homework. Or when they decide to hire a management consulting firm, with the consultants being ex MBA students of yours using the methodology you developped, published and taught them during their degree.....
Why not apply to the management consulting firm itself for example ? Take care
For the knowledge not the kudos or coin.
Nice video! Thanks Andy
How are the prospects after PhD in business/management disciplines (for industry jobs)?
I was pushing my little girl to get a PhD in macrobiology,when heared your video I began to think that she go masters in hemotology to get an other master thanks for your wise advice
Where does she want to work? It if it in BioPharam she will be handicapped without a PhD and/or MD.
Advanced degrees like PhD's and Doctorates are great if you like having "PhD" or "Dr" included in your name. Otherwise, meh...
What counts as a top university?
Yes! I want to know the same.
I would argue rankings and the amount of NIH funding a university receives. If your program is in the top 10 for its field. For example, University of Michigan--Ann Arbor is ranked #23 in the US; however, for their School of Public Health its ranked #4 and highly regarded amongst those in the public health field.
Best in the field- in terms of phd, the best supervisor on the subject
I would say also any Tier 1 research university
As a biomed/data science phd grad it's super weird that people get doctorates without getting skills that industry people would be all over. I'm p sure I could double my postdoc salary in a company if I really haggled
Not just a PHD you need experience on the job. Unless you are in the medical field certain PHDs leave you institutionalized and you could be left with debt and behind the ball in making money, example: PTA(assistant) is a 2year degree) vs PT(PHD) is 8 years. The difference in pay is $12. So you have 6 extra years in the program accumulating 100k+ in loans. I would say get the 2 year degree, start making money, transfer to a 4 year degree and you will be making more money before that PHD start making money. You have a 6 year head start. Shoot it might be 10 years before that PHD keeps up. That PTA can be a travel assistant making 5k a week. Think about it.
The trick with a PHD is the following
Go with one's that pays you money and pays your tuition, not a loan. As that implies that it has actual value worth doing economically speaking. Also your work has value you should be compensated for it.
Go with ones that give you direct industry contacts and industry experience. Extremely useful if you come from a socioeconomic background where you don't have access to that.
Go with ones that are broad and gives you skills in a lot of areas rather than a narrow one. That will not give you that much training or exp.
Go for at least a top twenty uni that has name recognition.
To note I am in the Uk so loans from undergrad only really adds up to around 50K or if your scottish add up to only cost of living or Wales under 30k. Also get written of if not fully paid in 30 years and only need to be paid if you earn above a certain amount of money so is just a secondary income tax at most.
America does it's population dirty with loans tbh. . .
Well, reality is top academia are very competitive and it could take years before getting the admission whereas mid range academia can provide you with opportunities to get into the door. Also, not all top professors or students are found in top academia, this is like saying top notch restaurants always have the best chefs or top line fashion stores have best merchandise and customer service. I finished my master's at a mid range university and compared my dissertation against one completed by a student from a top academia, the latter was so flat and I would fail if I submitted similar work. To my surprise that student got a distinction for that crappy dissertation. So, you get the point.
Couple up with other PhD and be of value projects wise in your communities.
there are some philosopher and historian that say that an high surplus of elitè educated people is a symptom of a crisys/revolution
Outside of Legalities, law & licenses & all that, all i care is if you can do the job correctly.
I think mid range supply is the worst. If supply will be high, industries will start pick and chose and the value will increase significantly how it happened for Masters degree. There will be more structured PhD program, and people start graduating in 3-4 years. Low supply will also be good because everyone can be academic. In mid-range supply, neither academia absorbs all of them, nor industries have enough talent pool for pick and choose.
I dont know, there is a big difference between being researcher, producing new research, and learning how to understand research.
The social contract that used to motivate Ph.D. students has been entirely violated by industry and academia. The reward/work ratio is much too low. And the proliferation of cheap and easy “Ph.D.” programs have cheapened the title irreparably.
Considering an academic career, I was told that you can secure an academic position at the tier level or below where your PhD was earned. So, yes, top tier is a good idea.
Also, please read "so long and thanks for the PhD"
Hey I go to Newcastle uni
sad to hear😂 i just applied flinders for my PhD