We have historical precedents.
The scientists who ended up at Los Alamos, U Chicago and virtually the entire team of the Manhattan project- fleeing the Nazis. But the notion that as a country we are eating our own seed corn (i.e. driving our own scholars to emigrate) is absurd.
Science is part of the liberal arts.
The other liberal arts subjects may not necessarily be better in this respect (PhDs, research).
And other countries are thrilled to hire American scientists
Europe races to lure U.S. scientists as Trump puts pressure on universities
Spurred by “alarming political interference in academic research by the Trump administration,” Brussels’s Vrije Universiteit (VUB), or Free University, allocated $2.7 million in funding last week for at least 12 new postdoctoral roles open to “censored Americans.” The same month, France’s Aix-Marseille University opened applications for about 15 places in a new Safe Place for Science program, hoping to welcome American scientists with the promise of academic freedom. AMU said it plans to raise up to $16 million in funding and has already received a “high number” of applicants for the three-year program.
At least one professor of medicine at UMD’s med school has accepted a position at AMU.
CC is pretty discouraging to students aspiring to a PhD, viewing it as a path only to low paid, high stress academia.
When I did my PhD the government funding actually included a three day course halfway through about why you should use your science PhD in industry rather than just becoming an academic. And after that course I was clear that there were much better opportunities in business than academia. You wrote yourself a postcard at the end that they sent to you six months later to remind you what you had learned. Mine said simply “get a real job”.
I think that cutting funding for PhDs is bad, but I do wish there was more emphasis in the US (and here on CC) about how research work in industry (either after or instead of a PhD) can be a much better path than academia. That might even help with justifying public support for research funding.
Some of this at least because of how colleges approach it. I remember looking at one PhD option in a well known college and they said openly something about how funding was most likely to be awarded to young graduates who had a long career in academia ahead of them - I have to emphasize that this was a subject in which there are plenty of non-academic opportunities available, and which in other countries you might see mid career professionals taking a break to do graduate study.
US colleges seem to treat those mid career professionals primarily as a revenue pool to be exploited, given the huge cost of a two-year masters. Whereas in the UK a one-year masters is cheap and my sense is that the best candidates get the competitive funding, which may not just be the new graduate wanting to go into academia. Rhodes scholarships are not awarded to people based on their suitability for an academic career.
What’s the best opportunity depends on the person. Academia plays a crucial role, but those jobs are disappearing. Tenure-track positions once offered benefits that made the lower starting pay more acceptable—job security, autonomy, independent research, teaching, flexibility, and substantial time off. Now, those full professorship opportunities are vanishing because universities would rather pay adjuncts and administrators than full professors.
Despite significant pay cuts, many sought federal service positions because they offered meaningful work: independent research, shaping industry science through contracts, contributing to the agency’s mission, and using their expertise for public benefit rather than corporate profits. There was also the autonomy and the opportunity to collaborate with top scientists. Unfortunately, political and corporate interests are gutting federal science agencies.
The times also play a huge factor. Every generation deals with a different employment landscape.
There’s no single best career path—people seek different opportunities based on their values and circumstances. Those who succeed often assume their path is the best, but success takes many forms.
I absolutely agree. But that makes it important to recognize that doing a PhD is not simply a pipeline to all the problems you list with an academic career. And unfortunate if selection for a PhD is based on pledging your commitment to such a goal.
Are professors and programs measured/ranked by what percentage of their PhD students end up in academic and/or tenure track jobs? How would the rankings of PhD programs differ if we looked at the average salary of degree holders in the same way as we do with undergrad institutions or professional degrees like MBAs? I guess there would be a few programs that are feeders to tech and finance companies with really high salaries? Do universities advertise and recruit for that?
I’m not sure if pursuing a faculty position is still the only goal. I’d guess that most enter their programs aiming for academia, but the experience often discourages them. My son received more discouragement than encouragement from his professors and advisor. Faculty members know that academic jobs aren’t what they used to be, especially with so many openings being non-tenure-track.
A PhD has never been a guarantee of a high salary, particularly early in one’s career, and pursuing an advanced degree is not a decision to take lightly. My bigger concern is whether the U.S. is producing enough PhDs. I don’t know the answer, but the question seems important.
The core purpose of a PhD is to train students to transition from consuming knowledge to creating it. However, PhD programs have high attrition rates, with estimates ranging from 31% to 56%, depending on the field. Additionally, a significant portion (about 34%) of U.S. doctoral degrees are awarded to international students. Given the many complex problems we need to solve—especially those that lack immediate profitability or carry high liability risks—we need academic and government researchers to fill the gaps where private industry won’t invest.
To attract and retain them, we need to reward them. Money isn’t the only incentive, but changes in academia and government are eroding the rewards that once made these paths appealing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/02/05/number-of-doctoral
I’m not in academia- so I defer to those with more granular experience with the PhD hiring market and process.
BUT- I see one benefit to the drop-out rate. For several decades, grad school (not necessarily professional school programs, but academic Masters and doctorates) were the fallback position of “I don’t have a clue what I’m going to do with my life but I’m good at school (K-12 plus a Bachelor’s) so I might as well stick with what I’m good at”. And the education deferments during the Viet Nam war/draft lottery really drove those numbers high.
This really doesn’t benefit society or the creation of knowledge, research, etc. I interview a LOT of ABD’s in many fields (and that’s a generous description- a lot of them dropped out after year 3 so they weren’t quite completing a dissertation) and the passion for what they were doing is quite dilute, to put it nicely. “I liked my poli sci classes so I decided what the heck, I’ll get a PhD”. We NEED PhD’s in poli sci- we need people who can systematically evaluate the metrics around the last few elections, crunch census data, do segmentation analysis on why this country is so divided right now, figure out how much of the drive towards authoritarian governments around the world is just the pendulum swinging back, or marks a new political/social order, etc.
But the “I guess I’ll get a doctorate” folks aren’t going to be the ones at the forefront of their disciplines. And that goes for the tepid engineers (“I didn’t like blood so med school was out, so what else is there for someone good at chemistry and math?”) etc.
If the drumbeat of “Academia is a hard road” is weeding out the indifferent scholars-- is that so bad?
But they might well be at the forefront of society if some PhDs and similar graduate degrees were viewed as simply a prestige statement that you are very smart. I don’t see most Rhodes scholars being “at the forefront of their disciplines” (admittedly not all do a PhD but it has become increasingly common in the last few decades). I do see quite a few leading the country.
Arguably the US PhD process is less suitable for that sort of thing (because it’s often 5-6 years rather than 3 years). I guess the US equivalent for demonstrating “I’m very smart” is a top MBA or law degree. But I’d argue it might be better for society if more leaders have researched in depth to advance a field of knowledge.
I absolutely agree with you.
However, the noble efforts to eliminate or reduce the “paper ceiling” by devaluing or de-emphasizing higher education in hiring means we have a while before the pendulum swings back!
I agree. It’s a tough road, and too many start down it without being fully prepared or committed to the demands. Yet as a country, we may still be underproducing true scholars for the challenges we face.
I agree. Sadly we seem to be in an era of anti-expertise.
Deloitte is cutting U.S. workers in its consulting business after the federal government demanded it find ways to shrink the cost of government projects it is working on.
The Big Four accounting firm didn’t specify how many employees would be targeted. “Modest personnel actions” would be taken in the coming weeks based on government clients’ evolving needs, the company said.
Deloitte also said voluntary employee turnover had slowed down. Since more consultants had stayed in their jobs in recent months, that contributed to the need to reduce its workforce, according to a U.S. spokesman. Overall demand for Deloitte’s advisory services remains strong, he added.
Deloitte’s U.S. management consulting business was flat last year, growing less than 1% in 2024, compared with 17.8% the previous year and 25.5% the year before that.
I was going to have a long post about what recently happened happened at work over one of my staff and what D1 is saying about her own associates and analysts. Instead I will just say to parents with adult children who are lucky enough to have jobs to think about, “what you can do for the company, instead of always what the company can do for you.” Instead of expecting your manager to make the job interesting for you, think about what you can do to make the job more interesting and what you can do to make it easier for your manager.
My firm is looking to cut back and this one staff on my team is going to be high my list because it has been too painful to accommodate him.
Oh the halcyon days of two months ago!!
In response to the current job situation for '25 grads, Bowdoin is launching a new grant program that will offer up to $2000 “for graduating seniors to help build skills they can market to potential employers”. CXD launches new Accelerator Plus program for graduating seniors, continues summer grant funding – The Bowdoin Orient
Shouldn’t they already have marketable skills when they graduate?
This grant seems to be targeted at students who were planning to go into policy, non-profit or scientific research. All of these fields have been massively impacted in a very short period of time by Federal governments policy changes. Last year, 15 graduates recieved Fullbright, that pathway has been closed.
As far as being prepared with marketable skills all sophomores return to campus early for a “Bootcamp” a three intensive career workshop. Bowdoin has strong placement into top law schools, medical schools and is a semi-target for Wall Street. Last year a group of graduates choose to try and make their way as an indie band. I could go on, but since this thread focuses on the difficulty most '24 graduates from all universities and majors are having landing jobs I thought it was relevant to highlight how one LAC’s career services was going beyond handshake and resume reviews to help their graduates in this difficult enviroment.
I’m not questioning the relevance to the thread or the education of Bowdoin.
I know many colleges or majors don’t directly prepare someone for work. Mine did not.
But it makes you wonder if they should?
And with your statement about - “many who were planning to go into policy, non-profit or scientific research.”…maybe that’s a hint about those majors (two of which my daughter is graduating with in 4 weeks)….that if you’re not developing translatable skills to the job market, the education was not effective?
Perhaps this is relevant to the - what major should one have question that often comes up.
To me, Bowdoin is acknowledging that we didn’t prepare all our grads for career success.
I see all the thumbs up on your post - people love LACs and the education they provide.
But shouldn’t people come out of college employable ?
And they are sort of acknowledging….maybe they aren’t.
It’s an observation - not an indictment.
For Bowdoin, at least they have the funds to help someone.
But that kid who wanted Poli Sci classes like my daughter, now might be taught how to build an app - a great skill I’m sure but something that kid may have never wanted to know or do - but turns out that might be the gap to employability vs not.