A lot of times I see a question along the lines of "Why don't we have more X students get PhD in Sciences?" where X= domestic students, female, minorities, etc.
The question I don't see asked is - why would ANYONE want to get a PhD?
I was looking at payscale.com data on starting salaries of ALL graduates of engineering-oriented schools. So apparently a median starting salary for MIT engineering graduate is $72K a year, and mid-career salary of $126K. Other engineering-oriented schools are not that far behind.
Starting and mid-career salary numbers for all disciplines for ivy-league schools are similar - 60K or so for starting salary and 100+K for mid-career. The situation is not that much worse for top state schools - Berkeley is on-par with Princeton or Dartmouth in those numbers.
So let's summarize - a recent graduate of MIT can make over $70K a year - median. If they are exceptional (as many people going for PhDs are), they can probably make considerably more. OR - they can go to grad school, where they will get paid $20K a year. And unlike law or business school where they suffer for 2 or 3 years while accumulating debt, but know that they will more than compensate for it after finishing, PhD programs in sciences often take 6-8 years. And what career prospects do PhDs, say, in physics have? Well, the default academic path is to become a postdoc - typically for 2-3 years with a salary of about $40K. And often people need to do multiple postdocs.
So the bottom line is that 10 years later non-PhD path can provide on the order of 0.5 million more in earnings than the PhD path. And one could argue that the career options after completing PhD and 1 or 2 postdocs are still quite bleak.
Of course there are several obvious disclaimers - long-term wise the earnings of PhDs may very well catch up to non-PhDs (maybe). Industry and government postdoc positions pay better than $40K. There are many alternative career paths that are open to PhDs - financial analysts, consulting, etc. But the real question then - is it worth spending so much time and effort (and lost earnings) on PhD just to switch to something completely unrelated?
There are many other disclaimers - the main one being that not everything is measured in monetary compensation. But I think people in the media writing about lack of science PhDs make the assumption that getting PhD is more similar to law, business or medicine degree - which it's not. And at least from a 10-15 year "looking forward" perspective of a bright and motivated engineering- or science- oriented college graduate, getting a PhD doesn't make much financial sense.
So in some ways people who DO go on to get PhD are doing it for different reason altogether - the self-selection rules required to overcome these simple financial considerations mentioned above - create an unusual sub-section of the population.
In many ways it is no different from die-hard Star Wars fans, people who work hard to qualify for olympics in obscure sports, full-time volunteering jobs in non-profits that pay little or no money, and other clubs and organizations away from mainstream activities which are performed at a significant disadvantage, financially.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
*sigh* I hate it when the opportunity cost is made so transparent. I prefer it to be hidden away, and never actively pondered.
Still, I count myself very lucky to be obsessed with something that people will pay me for, even if the pay is crap.
Some people are just lured into physics by popular propaganda which is skewed towards revealing what is nice about science and almost always hiding any negative aspects of science careers.
Agree with Mark here. Most of my friends from grad school years had no idea that academia could only absorb roughly 5% of the science PhD's when they started grad school. When they noticed this (10 years down the road), it was too late...
People do get immersed into their research projects immediately in grad school but they never do seem to get any serious career counseling which will help them to grab real life jobs. There are very few of them these days anyway. It is clear that the current high student/prof ratio in sciences is unsustainable. It is a bubble just like the housing market before 2006. I do think that the professors will get hurt the most when the bubble bursts.
I dunno about that. I have a hard time believing anyone is lured into a Ph.D. program, and I'd guess that most people actually knew beforehand that few people would actually land academic jobs, they just thought that it wouldn't happen to them.
And the unemployment rate among Ph.D. holders is very low, something approaching 1% IIRC. Meaning that people do get jobs, even if those jobs aren't academic ones. And that's not to say that the change to a non-academic job isn't traumatic in any number of ways for people who experience it. I've only experienced it as a hypothetical, and that's wrenching enough.
Why would anyone pursue graduate studies in anything, at that rate ? Why would anyone try to become a musician, an athlete, s journalist, entrepreneur, artist, president of the United States... the odds of succeeding, of achieving the desired goal, are arguably even smaller than making a living out of science.
Why would anyone pursue a career in anything other than plumbing, automotive repair, divorce law or dentistry, then ? The real question to me is: do we really want to live in that kind of world ?
' Physics is like sex... sure it may have some practical results, but that's not why we do it! '
I couldn't agree more with the fact that money isn't equal to happiness, but equally to the actual fact that nobody really teaches you about the market, that's your advisor's job. Some are good, others score very poorly... But think about it, if you land a job in academia... 'I'm the king of the world!' ;)
G
Why is it wrong to want more money to do what we like? Many of us have families and would like to provide them full of opportunities (in many cases, it involves money).
The problem, the way I see it, is not that someone with a PhD in Sciences doesn't make good money, but that no matter what this person does, (s)he will never be able to make lots of money doing what (s)he supposedly likes.
Why is it wrong to want more money to do what we like? Many of us have families and would like to provide them full of opportunities (in many cases, it involves money).
There's nothing wrong with wanting more money for doing something you like; everyone wants that. But why expect that you deserve more money for doing science?
The problem, the way I see it, is not that someone with a PhD in Sciences doesn't make good money, but that no matter what this person does, (s)he will never be able to make lots of money doing what (s)he supposedly likes.
I can't for the life of me understand why you think this is actually a problem. Unless we're using the word 'problem' quite differently. Would like I to be paid a lot of money to be a scientist. Sure, why the hell not? But do I think it's a problem as in something that society needs to address because it ain't happening? Nope.
Nobody is entitled to make a "lots of money" doing anything, especially something that the vast majority of society thinks is an utter waste of time.
Why is it wrong to want more money to do what we like? Many of us have families and would like to provide them full of opportunities (in many cases, it involves money).
In a market economy compensation is determined by supply and demand. You may like it or not, but it has nothing to do with the sciences per se.
And while there is nothing "wrong" with always wanting more money than one has, to state that a particular career does not pay well because it is impossible to become a billionaire seems excessive.
It's a competitive career, sure, just like many others.
And in any case, most academic scientists understand that and have no problem with it (try talking any one of them into quitting based on the extra money that (s)he can make doing something else).
no matter what this person does, (s)he will never be able to make lots of money
I have always a hard time understanding what exactly this type of assertion means. What exactly is "lots of money" ? And, don't 99% of people go through life without making lots of money at any time ?
I tend to side with okham - doing physics DOES have a lot more in common with writing poems, painting, acting, playing pro sports or running for elected office - in a sense that few make it, but a lot of people still try, because they feel they have a "calling".
However, there are some differences too - a bad actor without a job, an artist who can't sell a painting, a politician who keeps losing or an athlete who is just not good enough - their contributions to society go straight to the waste basket. But many struggling graduate students and postdocs could actually be quite productive and successful, and they DO contribute to society in a very meaningful way - but society doesn't value those contributions.
Also - when someone "makes it" in pro sports, art, acting - the big shots have multi-million dollar contracts waiting for them. Someone "making it" in physics is offered an assistant professor salary of $70K for 9 months, at age 30 or 35. Which is the same salary that 21-year old MIT engineer grad could be making by joining IBM as their foot soldier.
Surely none of us are doing physics for the money - we would be crazy to argue that. But what is "lots of money" standard here? I am not talking "$5 million McCain defintion of rich". But how many 30+ year old postdocs do you know who can afford to buy a house? Meanwhile there are plenty of 25-year old kids who have 9-5 "regular" boring jobs in industry who CAN afford to buy a house, who weren't smarter or harder-working that PhD-path people - the only difference is that they chose not to go for PhD.
So it seems society doesn't really value smart people contributing to scientific knowledge by pursuing PhDs - one could make more money without PhD, and in many ways have more security in their lives.
I didn't mean billionare when I said lots of money. But ~$70k a year is not what I consider "fair" for a person with about 10 years of training after college (5-6 PhD, 4-5 Postdoc).
Why do I think scientists deserve more money? Because as far as I can see, scientific discoveries is what has made life better for everyone of us, we can't do anything without the help of some technological device and all of those are based in science. I don't think politicians deserve the pay they get, many of them don't seem to make much good to society and a vast majority of them don't have any graduate education.
But do I think it's a problem as in something that society needs to address because it ain't happening? Nope.
Well, good luck with that. One of the biggest problems the US has (but not only the US) is that many teachers are unprepared or unmotivated and that reflects in a lower educational level for the younger generations. I have talk to many of those teachers and they all complain that the money is not good, why should they work hard or harder, or even worse, how can you recruit well prepared teachers if the pay is low? if something like that can happen to science I see that as a problem.
especially something that the vast majority of society thinks is an utter waste of time.
In this case, I don't care what the majority of society thinks. If they think Science is a waste of time they can go fuck themselves. I wonder what that people think about life without the scientific advances in medicine for example.
don't 99% of people go through life without making lots of money at any time?
Does that 99% have graduate degrees and +15 years of post high-school training? I would not think so.
I might have been misinterpreted when I said lots of money, I don't want CEO-like checks, all I am saying is that after spending years and years in school making little or no money, many of us don't always compensate for those lost years. Tenured professors are not included since they will get a paycheck and health insurance for the rest of their lives.
I agree 100% with IP's comment at 11:34am
Does that 99% have graduate degrees and +15 years of post high-school training? I would not think so. I might have been misinterpreted when I said lots of money, I don't want CEO-like checks, all I am saying is that after spending years and years in school making little or no money, many of us don't always compensate for those lost years.
Yeah, but, you see, to many of us being able to work as a scientist is a reward in and of itself, whose importance exceeds the amount of money one makes.
This is why, and I repeat myself, you are not going to be able to lure away from their jobs many academic scientists by offering them more money, if that means switching to a different activity.
If you don't see it that way, then I would frankly steer clear of a career in science. Personally, the moment I hear one of my students talk money, I immediately tell that person that science is probably not for him/her (I would tell the same thing to an aspiring musician, philosopher, historian etc.)
Granted, one has to make it to being an academic scientist, but that is no different than pursuing any other professional goal, for which one has to work hard (in this case that means spending a lot of time in school, in other cases it may mean to accept difficult missions abroad) and success is not guaranteed.
okham,
I know that no tenured or tenure-track academic will give up their jobs to go make more money somewhere else, but that is because being a professor comes with other benefits that are compensate for the lack of a larger paycheck (i.e. job security, insurance, in many cases free or cheap education for their kids, several months "vacations", etc).
I don't think, however, that 100% of research professors and postdocs after having spent 8 years in those positions without moving up the payscale and without having complete freedom to do what they want, would stay there for the rest of their lives.
Artists, musicians, etc. although have in common that is hard to make it to the top, they do not need an education, you can skip school and if you are good you will make it. There is something about spending many years in school, without any safety net that makes it worse for a scientist. Even more so if you consider that many (if not all) of those scientists could do an excellent job in something else.
I could also argue that artists and related careers do not contribute as much as science does to society and that music and painting could be done as a hobby in their "free" time but you cannot do any good science at home, after a 9-5 or so job.
Even worse, when you decide to go to Hollywood you know the chances of making it are slim, you know it's hard and you know money will be scarce. That's not always known among grad students, many of those think that a PhD in Physics will pay them better than it actually does.
Yes, I will most likely leave science when I finish my degree (I'm closer to the end, it just makes sense get it and justify those years with no work experience). I know several others in my PhD program that are doing the same, talented people. I don't know about you, but I think that's a loss for science.
It's supply and demand, people. As long as you have companies clamoring for H1B visas, have tenured professors and grant-recieving universities talking about how more people need to go into science, then the result will be a high supply of scientists and low earnings.
Discovery is like the black rose. It can only be seized where it is not. Every now and again we skip lunch and reach out where the black rose cannot possibly be. Sometimes it is right there, waiting.
PhDs are issued so the rest of the population knows when to duck.
the result will be a high supply of scientists
What is your take on the high rate of failed physics searches this year, then (as inferred form the condensed matter rumor mill, for example) ? If the supply is so high, how is it possible that one in two searches fails to identify a viable candidate, and that a third of all hires come from abroad ?
I'm 27, male, and doing post-graduate studies in political science and I know full well that getting an academic job is very difficult. So, I've decided not to stress myself via worrying/thinking about that as a goal at all.
I'm simply doing the study as 'something to do'. That is, study is an ok lifestyle (for me). I have no specific goals for life post-study. I've been out working/living in the real world, and I needed a break from it's stresses after a nervous-breakdown.
In my case, post-graduate study is a shelter from the demands of work, and social pressures of 'So, what are you doing with your life these days?'. One day I'll work again, and further study provides an ok social identity for me while I recover.
My supervisors don't know this of course - they assume I want to be an academic like them!
Post a Comment