In a recent survey, the European Science Foundation reported “considerable dissatisfaction and stress” among the post-doctoral population due to insufficient scopes in academia. The report has urged universities and governing bodies to make doctoral candidates aware of the current dim academic job prospects. This opinion is in no way isolated: this theme is being echoed recurrently in various scientific quarters. Is there a way out? A recent Nature article by Julie Gould talks about just that: ‘How to build a better Ph.D.’
The past two decades have witnessed a growing concern that graduate departments are producing Ph.D. students at an alarming rate. The situation is aggravated further by the meager number of academic jobs out there. Dr. Paula Stephan, renowned labor economist at Georgia State University in Atlanta, specializes in studying the relations between economics and the biomedical sciences. Her advice to the graduate departments is loud and clear: Slow down! The dearth of positions for doctoral degree holders in academia is making the rigorous exercise of getting a Ph.D. rather futile for many. The number of graduate students receiving a doctoral degree has increased by 41% between 2003 and 2013, the maximum increase being in the life sciences field. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimated in 2014 that across 34 countries the number of doctoral degree holders have doubled over the past decade. The scores of students who aspire to be in academia can have their hopes dashed: academic jobs have failed to keep up with the increasing number of hopefuls. This pushes many into extended underpaid post-doctoral positions that have few benefits to offer. The number of people with a science doctorate who are unemployed is relatively low, but there is a steady rise in people who are graduating with a doctoral degree without job offers in their pockets. Dr. Stephan traces why: a major reason is that faculty members at research institutions depend on the cheap labor of graduate students and post-docs to conduct research. Almost always, theirs and their institution’s reputations hinge on this research. Thus there is little impetus to abolish this vicious cycle and usher in change. On a brighter note, people are talking about this: recently a group of scientists launched a website called Rescuing Biomedical Research, aimed to provide a platform where scientists can openly discuss strategies to alleviate the bleak situation in biomedical research. A common theme of this forum: “How can we improve graduate education so as to produce a more effective scientific workforce, while also reducing the ever-expanding PhD workforce in search of biomedical research careers?”
In a survey conducted by Nature, a group of PhD students, scientists, postdocs and labor economists made a broad range of suggestions: impending changes that need to be mobilized to revamp the system. They agreed on one thing: changes need to be implemented at once. For starters it is essential to make the graduate school experience transparent to aspiring students. There should be websites or databases that have data on graduate student outcomes after obtaining a doctoral degree. There is consensus that incoming graduate students have little or no idea about the prospects after graduate school and the limited number of available academic positions. Most students are opting for academia without having any clue of the acute dearth of tenure-track positions.
Meager amounts of data exist on career paths: there are gaping holes in terms of the range of job opportunities, earnings, time spent as a postdoc and long-term career trajectories for graduate students. Notably, the US Council of Graduate Schools in Washington DC has pointed out the lack of standardized ways to track doctoral students’ career paths after graduation and that only a handful of universities in US and Canada actually compile and maintain such data of their past graduates.
In a commendable effort, Stanford University recently published a report where they tracked the trajectories of their Ph.D. students in the past 5-10 years. This study noted a steep decrease of graduates going into post-doctoral positions. Curiously, there is a sharp rise in graduates opting for business, government or non-profit positions. This bespeaks of the slump in academia and boom in other arenas. Dr. Julia Lane, an economist at New York University, is currently leading a comprehensive study to compile career outcomes of graduate students in a database called UMETRICS, based at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Utilizing data from various credible sources like ‘anonymized human-resource and administrative data from universities with US Census Bureau data on earnings, places of work and job titles’ this database will be an excellent campus-level resource. Prospective candidates will be able to freely access this database to find out the career outcome of recent graduates from a particular department of a university before enrolling in the respective graduate program. This will be instrumental in students’ making an informed decision before joining graduate school.
Spending all their time in lab doing research, graduate students and post-docs often do not get an opportunity to learn essential skills in management, budgeting and negotiation. Since the dawn of the Ph.D. system in the nineteenth century, it has been based on the ‘apprenticeship model’ where newly inducted researchers are trained in the art of research. However, changing scientific landscapes over the years have seen little or no change in this system. To keep up with needs of the changing job markets, in addition to their training as scientists, students and post-docs need to be trained in soft skills that are indispensable in getting employed in various fields. In 2013, the National Institute of Health (NIH) took one such milestone initiative by launching the Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) initiative: iJOBS at our school is a part of this. This program is already in motion at several schools and intends to trains participants to acquire skills that make them more attractive candidates for future employers.
Recent times have seen a burst in demand for scientifically trained people in non-academic jobs. This has given rise to the debate whether to split the Ph.D. track into two paths: one for people geared towards academia and the other for non-academic jobs. A strategy in line with this concept is already in vogue in engineering: one can pursue ‘an academic-style PhD in engineering or a doctorate in engineering (EngD)’ the latter gearing students towards industrial careers. This concept,t though novel in biomedical research, has already been implemented in Denmark. However, this has also raised concerns from certain quarters as to whether both these degrees will be valued similarly.
The idea that we need to slash the number of doctoral degree recipients is also gaining momentum. Encouraging students to get a Master’s degree instead of doctoral can be an option as several career paths need skills that can be acquired only with a Master’s degree. Many advocate getting a Master’s degree before Ph.D. This could give potential candidates an idea as to what to expect in the long grueling years towards a Ph.D. and help them decide whether they are willing to put in that commitment. In the current scenario, there is a plethora of career options that are available where the ‘problem-solving and analytical skills’ acquired during Master’s is sufficient to land up with a lucrative and fulfilling career. Keeping with the trend, there has been a surge in the number of students opting for a Master’s degree in various fields. However, this is not the ultimate solution: most Master’s students in the US and UK need to pay for the degree themselves and that dissuades many to follow this route.
The call by labor economists to cut the number of Ph.D. students to revitalize the biomedical field has met with stiff opposition by faculty members and research institutions. In times where government is reluctant to fund biomedical research, the loss of cheap labor seems to be a bleak prospect for them. Deterring students from pursuing doctoral degrees is also viewed as being detrimental to scientific growth and innovative thinking as a whole. The strategy of enforcing stiffer criteria to enter graduate programs like that done by the American Bar Association to quality-control people entering law school is a plausible option. However the right criterion to filter candidates remains elusive. Graduate Records Examinations (GREs) that have been widely used in the US as a benchmark has been met with harsh criticisms as it is a poor indicator of success in graduate school. One study hails ‘previous experience in research and the subject-specific GRE results (but not the analytical, verbal or quantitative elements)’ to be a good marker. Additionally, skills in communication, management, and teamwork can be used as a filter to admit students ‘with a passion for academic or industrial research’. However, the suggestion that students should be mandated to have monetary contributions towards their degrees has met with opposition on moral grounds.
In conclusion, though the burden of refurbishing the system can be assigned to advisors, institutions and governing bodies, the ultimate decision lies on the graduate students to choose what they want for themselves. They should utilize all the resources available in this age of internet and choose wisely. Will more availability of information on career outcomes and dwindling research funding make fewer people go in for a Ph.D.? Or will the natural passion for science that has propelled many towards research hold sway? Only time will tell…
The original article can be read here.