From climate, energy, & oceans to economics, health, & policy ~ everything is connected.
21 Aug
Some say so.. Particularly many graduate students I know. It’s clear that there are far more students with hopes of traveling along a tenure-track trajectory than there are jobs waiting at the end of the pipeline. However, the system is far more complex when you explore things further.
That’s the topic of tomorrow’s post, so stay tuned. And in the mean time I’m interested to hear your perspective.
[...] path because I don’t want to be a bench jockey. I want to be the puppetmaster (you can see Sheril Kirshenbaum’s post about whether this is a pyramid scheme), setting the stage and pulling the strings that guide a big [...]
Sheril Kirshenbaum is Director of The Energy Poll at The University of Texas at Austin.
Meet the CoS Interns
Interested in contributing to Culture of Science?
Policy Fellowships for Scientists & Engineers
Jobs in Congress
benicar viagra interaction & viagra athletes 2010
Where I Work
ms and viagra
Protect Biodiversity & Support Conservation
generic viagra problems
cheap viagra products
© 2012 Culture of Science. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by food alternatives to viagra. Designed by 
I think you could apply this thinking to any field – more graduates than jobs is a common problem. I had a conversation with a friend in teachers college recently, and she pointed out that while there are several B.Ed. programs in Ontario, with each program graduating ~ 500 students a year, there just aren’t enough jobs for all of these people. Of my friends who have gone to Teachers College, the vast majority have gone abroad to teach to gain experience. A similar situation exists in academia. We’re definitely not alone in this experience.
I can see why people say that. But for me, no–and I never thought of it that way.
For me it was the way to take a personal interest and go as far as I could with it, earning me a credential that I could carry into whatever else I chose to do later.
Even during grad school I could assess the numbers: in the early 90s my department got 400 applications on the first day from a job ad. And for this position they wanted “a yeast person” or “a fly person” specifically. So no matter how great my mammalian work might be, there was no way I could have even competed for that position.
But that academic route is not what I wanted anyway. And I’m very happy with how it has played out for me. Yet my PhD always gave me the confidence and the credential to try other stuff I wanted–anything short of that would not have given me the options I had, I don’t think.
I would love to see departments in my field actively educate and train grad students for a wider array of possible careers (not just tenure track at a research institution.) Although the astronomy Decadal Review is in line with this sentiment, I’m not sure if they made specific recommendations. The push for this may have to come from the students.
That said, I am very fortunate to have an advisor that is encouraging me to think broadly about where my career might lead, and has helped me todevelop my teaching skills as well as research. However, other advisors may not be so open-minded.
I don’t think pyramid scheme is the right model or metaphor. Pyramid schemes depend on growth from generation to generation until they bust. Republican conservatives say that Social Security is a pyramid scheme, but its not.
Exactly – people who use these descriptions of pyramid and ponzi schemes only show their own misunderstanding of what they are talking about.
Also – why assume that the only path beyond a PhD is one within Academia? I used my PhD to move into private enterprise R&D and have gone on to a rich and rewarding career in consulting, business and running my own companies, as well as time teaching at a University as an Adjunct Teaching Fellow.
My science traning and experience gained attaining a PhD were invaluable components in developing that career – to be honest I didn’t find a prospective academic career all that inspiring (although many do and that’s good too).
Embrace learning (and the associated credentials) for the opportunities it opens and let’s not have a limited narrowing view
My thoughts exactly! First, you get paid to get a PhD. In a biomedical PhD program, you get to learn Science in a lab where everyday you can do something new, find something no one else has ever found before and figure out how things work. What other schooling pays you to get the highest possible degree given?
Secondly, you dont just learn about your little protein, or signaling cascade. You learn how to digest large amounts of information and make sense of it. You learn to collaborate with others, some who you like and some who you probably won’t like. You learn how to manage your time, make goals and aims that you have to meet.
All of these are techniques and exercises that can be used in many other types of business, Pharma, management, consulting, etc.
Academia is not the end-game for all students. I went to top 10 medical school for my PhD and I am the only 1 with an academic position 8 years out of grad school. And everyone is employed in some fashion or the other. Some still in post-doc, some non-tenure track positions but most out of academia into Biotech, consulting, defense, etc. Plenty of room for everyone. You just have to get off your ass and go find it.
I think to characterize the pursuit of an academic career as a pyramid scheme is somewhat unfair. I have always likened it to professional sports. Everyone who chooses to pursue it thinks they have a fair chance of achieving it. Unfortunately, for a large percentage of those who enter the pursuit find themselves in a highly competitive environment with a rapidly narrowing bottleneck at the final stage. The fact that 1000′s of intelligent people enter the process provides a diverse pool from which faculty will be selected. Theoretically, the smartest and most accomplished will get to play in the “big leagues.” Those who come up short will play in the minors for a while, some becoming journeymen while others jump ship early for alternative careers.
Another analogy might be venture capital investments. Venture investors know that by investing in 10 companies they will be lucky for one of those companies to be profitable. Gerry Rubin, head of HHMI’s Janelia Farms labs, once told me that he approached the selection of researchers this way. Of course, he used all his resources to try to perform better than 1 in 10, but he knew the risks and was willing to take them in order to fund interesting science.
To say academia is a pyramid scheme sounds conspiratorial and though I love a good conspiracy, it distracts from what might be the bigger message for young scientists. That message should be, “Know the rules of the game. Be prepared to compete. Do everything you can to rise to the top. Mediocrity is not your goal.”
When I advise young scientists, I tell them to use the same rules of the game to select their grad schools and their future PIs. I tell them to evaluate their potential PIs as if they are investment opportunities. Do they have the funding to help them achieve their goals? Do they have the reputation to build the collaborations necessary to expose them to the research community? Do they have a track record of success? If students are as shrewd about choosing their mentors as the mentors are at selecting them, they will increase their chances of success.
I think the “pyramid scheme” problem is not that the audition process is too selective. It’s that it’s too long. You only really learn in the first year or two of your Ph.D. program. The rest is just lost time.
Can’t agree at all – I learned more in the 2nd half of my PhD when I had to put it all together, write the papers and really interact with the scientific community in my area.
So I don’t think you can generalise from your own experience.
Perhpas some end up wasting their time (I certainly know people who took far too long) – but their procrastination is their issue not that of doing a PhD – and for there are many I know who were efficient AND developed their learning and skills throughout
Hmmm, not in my experience doing a PhD or supervising students. More like 80% in the last 20% of the time.
John, it’s an interesting point to say the length of one’s PhD program defines it as a pyramid scheme. In some respects, I agree with the idea that PIs milk the process for every drop. However, I think a savvy grad student can avoid that problem. Those who lack an honest mentor and who are disadvantaged by not understanding the system are most vulnerable. This is an area I hope will be reformed.
Excellent sports analogy. There are many different levels of scientists, and many careers to choose from after a PhD (and calling the non-academia careers “alternate” is narrow-minded and condescending). So a resounding NO to the pyramid scheme, which as others have pointed out is tainted with very negative connotations.
Benoit, I agree “alternate” is an unfortunate word choice for careers outside academia. I am currently pursuing one of those “alternate” careers. I suppose it’s only alternate if one’s original intention was to stay in academia. I knew quite early that I didn’t want to be a professor, but I had no idea I’d ultimately arrive in science policy. In this regard, whereas my training is in molecular biology, I will soon step away from the bench (most likely forever). This means I am not using my training as it was intended. For me, it is not derogatory to refer to my career path as “alternative.” However, I can see how others might feel that way. I think it depends on whether one considers their new path desirable. I fortunately am very pleased with my new direction.
No! No! No! This is why PhD students and postdocs need appraisals /development reviews /mentoring /career advice – call it what you will. As a moderately successful academic, 2 of my students are chaired professors and another 3 are associate professors. That’s enough to replace me and more. I take just as much delight in those who do research in biotech companies, or use their analytical skills in the financial, commercial or public service sectors. We need need more science PhDs in government and commerce.
Recommend reading:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Loss-of-Excellence-Part-1/125965/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/business/09law.html
http://chronicle.com/article/Academics-Face-Questions-About/128612/
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/kudos-to-the-aaup/29967
Academia is loosing excellence by not being honest. Every academic hiring and tenure decision should be quantitative and repeatable – just as you expect from every properly administered human resource decision. Every academic job position should be able to spell out exactly, in detail, what every candidate must do to obtain tenure. If they do it – they get tenure. It must be equally applied to all academic positions – period.
If academic hiring is not the above – it is unethical and dishonest to the Ph.D.’s seeking academic positions.
This is extremely relevant to both me and my wife. We’re in our late 20′s, have Master’s degrees, and have begun working, but now we are facing the decision to invest the next 4-6 years in PhD programs. Of course we realize that there is no guarantee that jobs will be waiting for us at the end, but we don’t really know any other way to progress in our careers otherwise (I’m an evolutionary geneticist working as a research assistant, and my wife works in non-profits and has a strong interest in public health).
It is a very stressful decision, especially when you consider that it will impact our choice of where we leave, when we buy a house, when we start having kids, and a ton of other important life steps! I’m very interested to hear what you have to say about it.
So many interesting contributions already and we’ve barely begun to explore the topic.. I look forward to reading responses to the full post on this tomorrow.
I am curious as to the final outcome of this question, and perhaps my former philosophical training can help you clarify the question a bit. Several propose that your analogy between a Ph.D. and a pyramid scheme is not helpful. Therefore I would start by examining what a pyramid scheme is and what the relevant comparison would look like. You may at this point decide that there is no relevant comparison worth making. In that case you could either find another analogy or figure out some other way to talk about the status of people who want to obtain a Ph.D.
If you do continue with this metaphor consider that many people have commented that perhaps the academic field is not all that different from other fields. Other fields seem to also have large number of entry positions and few at the top (are corporations pyramid schemes?).
In brief it seems that two questions need to be answered what do you mean by the pursuit of a Ph.D. is a pyramid scheme and then explain why a Ph.D is a pyramid scheme, but other careers arent.
I hope this was helpful.
It’s misleading to call doctoral programs pyramid schemes. The major similarities are that there are more students than supervisors, and students are perceived as gaining less than supervisors.
Unlike pyramid schemes, doctoral supervisors cannot recruit students indefinitely (though many is often seen as being beneficial), and doctoral students cannot recruit their own students.
What Zen said. Plus also, a pyramid *structure* (the very essence of capitalism) and a pyramid *scheme* (Ponzi) are very different concepts indeed.
Exactly. Perhaps your title should be edited? I was also struck by the word “scheme”, which really implies an abuse of confidence, which of course is not what most PhD candidates would not characterize their graduate studies (I hope).
I totally agree with this, and with prior commenters as well. In most fields, there are many more qualified applicants than available slots for the most desired jobs. More detailed thoughts here: http://theprodigalacademic.blogspot.com/2010/06/academia-and-pyramid-schemes.html
I also agree with Jamie–in my field, most people get PhDs with no intention of staying in academia. In addition, I know several people who always intended on doing something else (most common: teaching high school) who wanted to spend 5 years or so exploring their interest in science in detail.
Absolutely it’s a pyramid scheme, more so in the humanities, but also in the sciences. You have a glut of students all taking on six-figures in debt to get a degree where you will be in tough competition for any job you seek, not just professorships.
The idea that a Ph.D. makes you more marketable is nonsense. We don’t want Ph.D’s in the business world because they lack practical skills. I’ve hired two of them over the years for technical positions and had to let them both go because they don’t produce anything except white papers about how they’re going to accomplish a task instead of just accomplishing it. The laboratories that I service have stopped hiring Ph.D’s for the same reason, they’re too idiosyncratic and lack the social skills to work with everyday people. I’ve spoken with many other managers who have come to the same conclusion: don’t hire an academic if you want to get work done.
Economists have been calling education the next bubble because the pay-off does not match the expense. You take on more than $100k in debt to make just a little more than the undergraduate who took on $30k? That’s unsustainable, just like any other pyramid scheme.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I’ve noticed the people who post on these blogs are all part of academia’s insular culture. Outside of that culture people are less concerned with philosophizing and more concerned with results.