AdobePinon

Uh-oh. Maybe I'll go add some blurb to his thread later.

AdobePinon

Ain't that the truth? And yep, the irony is super strong on this subject.

retzie

Of course! Although in my field, where research is much more individualistic, it's the state of high competition for jobs that ensures that even the crappest jobs, in the crappest schools, in the crappest places are filled. The line of bright young things willing to sacrifice their lives and those of their loves ones for the supreme privilege of teaching precalculus to business majors...

I remember someone laid it out for me when I was in maybe the first or second year as a postdoc. (This was someone who was on the "right" side of the system, but he was a thoughtful soul and was aghast at the way the system grinds people's dreams to dust.) It didn't compute at all, because I was so ensconced in my state of willful ignorance at the time. Sadly, he died an untimely death so I can't thank him now, but I do find myself repeating his words over and over.

carcajou

Yep. 300 applications for every 1 position. For an ordinary wage in some fly-over or drive-through small town. That you usually have to spend years on a virtual poverty level income first, to even have a shot at. With a professional caste system where if you end up (in my field) as a "lecturer" or an "instructor" first, you become untouchable no matter how many senior teams you work on. I do know a few who have crossed over but very few and far between.

Not sure about your field, but in mine, you don't even really get to do "your" research anymore. So much of your job performance is on winning grant monies that you effectively become a hired gun pursuing someone else's research agenda within your genre, to keep winning those grants. Not new news, however.

steveq

So what then ? Is there a "use" for Phd apart from personal satisfaction and a career path in academia ? Are chemists likely to find more doors open in industry with one ? Our Civil Engineering student is in two minds about further education beyond his Batcheiors, preferring to get his PE registration ASAP.

carcajou

Sure there is. It is basically "scientist training." There are, and can be, a wide range of applications beyond academia.

Whether a PhD is the correct path, often has less to do with intellectual ability (by that I mean - if someone has successfully completed a Master's, I am assuming there is a baseline level of competence and preparation to do a doctorate) and far more to do with the intersection of career goals, finances, the work field someone is in, and personal circumstances. One of the best questions to ask a prospect is "what do you plan to do with your PhD, and why?"

I can't speak to PhDs and chemists, sorry.

steveq

I'd like to keep this discussion bouncing around.
Scientists and engineers continue "scientist training" with jobs in industry too.

retzie

Absolutely. The problems come from not thinking about it in advance. The sour grapes you see above is from seeing countless bright young things starting a PhD with bags of curiosity/ability, who look at their "betters" (PIs, academics in plum positions) and think that will be them one day. Even a short period of reflection will reveal that the numbers won't work: the chance of any individual making it to the top are very small. So it's really important to look at what the second, third, and fourth best options are. If you are okay with that progression, then by all means, have at it.

If someone is already clear about not staying in academia, I think they are running at a much lower risk from the outset. If you start with a plan to end up in industry, there's much less chance of getting trapped among the misty-eyed masses. The challenge becomes that the pathway into industry is usually less well defined, so it will need a more deliberate plan and a commitment to some individual actions. This is where non-standard-issue CV items come in (did you organize a conference? Work a summer/gap year job?), since those are the things that show an industry employer that you are not just a boffin. On paper, my employer has a direct track from academia, but in practice, it is a nightmare. Everyone is so gun-shy after screes of failed hires that we go poking around in the corners of CVs looking for crumbs that indicate the candidate MIGHT actually be able to take direction, work with others, understand a deadline, etc. Even with extreme caution, these hires often fail.

From what I know of chemistry, links with industry are typically strong, so it shouldn't be especially difficult to land a good industry position on graduation. But definitely ask around to see what the most likely positions are! If the 3 accepted pathways sound awful and/or are confined to 4 towns, none of which you would ever live in, you might not be onto a winner. If you hear of ONE really cool industry job that is unlike all the others, again, do your research as you might be sticking yourself back in the misty-eyed bucket (this is basically the reaction that my current job elicits -- sorry, there's only one and it's mine!).

For an industry-minded student, I think the most important thing is to make sure that everyone in the department knows that this is your intention (not just advisor, but director of graduate studies or similar). That way they can help shape your opportunities and experience so you are ready for more outward-facing projects.

Last I heard, the numbers were worse than that. Tenure-track positions were getting upwards of 600 applicants in a ghastly town; north of 1,500 in a decent city. And yes, the caste system is alive and well. At least there is a growing professionalism of teaching-only positions, so they offer much better conditions than years past (e.g., benefits, pathway to promotion). Yes, they are essentially kept separate from any kind of research track, but that doesn't offend me, as they are pretty widely recognized as their own track now, rather than being a "holding pattern" to get back into research. (I have held such a position and was very happy with this separation, as I was at a point where I was totally fed up with research and really enjoyed the opportunity to throw myself into teaching). Having said all that, don't get me started on adjuncts...

The question of research direction is an interesting one and it definitely varies by location. I know in Oz, there is much more pressure to achieve on whatever metrics the bean-counters set; I am always depressed by the conversations I hear when I visit. In my field, a lot of people don't have grant support, since you don't actually need money to do maths research. Of course, grants will definitely help your job chances, but it's not the same make-or-break pressure as other fields. That being said, the pressure is felt in a less visible way. If you want to meet the bar for hiring/tenure/promotion, you need to be publishing in journals that are sufficiently important. So that puts a secondary filter on where your research can be going: is it fashionable enough to get you published in a journal impactful enough to get you the job/promotion? This was the final straw with me: post-2008, this suddenly became much more of a factor than it had been previously. I hated the idea that I would have to research something I wasn't actually interested in (research is too hard to do something you don't like!), so decided my time was up.

AdobePinon

As far as chemistry goes outside academia, a bachelor's can get you a lab job where you are doing everyone else's bidding, perhaps running reactions for folks, or doing routine analysis. You are unlikely to get too much higher up than that, and those who like doing chemistry usually end up back in grad school after a few years. Or, when you see an ad for someone with 20 years of HPLC experience, maybe that ends up being you.

A master's will get you a couple of levels up from that. A master's is a great starting point for lateral moves into other careers, and a lot of folks do that immediately after graduating, or after working as a chemist for a while. Maybe they start as a chemist, but end up moving to more administrative fields after a while, perhaps picking up an MBA along the way. Maybe they switch to a different STEM field. Again, those who want to do new things in chemistry, or be in charge of research directions, will end up back in grad school.

A PhD will let you rise to the top in industry research. You will likely start with research in the lab, but sooner or later you will be managing other chemists, dictating research directions, budgeting research, and eventually playing a large part int he direction of the company. Many of my classmates from almost 20 years ago now hold titles such as 'Director of Research', 'Global Head of Catalysis', 'Senior Staff Scientist', 'Executive Director', 'Vice President for blah blah", 'Chief Scientist', etc... Some of those job titles are as important as they sound, and some are not.

One thing to keep in mind is that if your dream job does not require a PhD, getting one may price you out of the position.

I agree with most of what is stated in the posts above. If you have an interest in non-academic jobs, it is quite important to find a PhD advisor who at least collaborates to some extent with non-academics. Some professors really have no idea what goes on outside the ivory tower, and will be of very little help to someone who wishes to explore such a path. The same advice goes for when it's time to put together a thesis committee. You should consider your committee an enabler for your immediate and long term success, and not just a barrier to graduation.

Another thing to keep in mind is that regardless of whether you end up in academia, industry, or elsewhere, very few folks will perform hands-on research for long with a PhD. They cost too much. Their job will be to direct the 'cheaper labor'.

SFNative

My PhD is in chemistry. First, I knew I wasn't going to go into academia. I didn't have any problems getting a post-doc in Europe. I picked the less prestigious lab that gave me an offer because the lab seemed more friendly and less brutally publish-or-perish. I could do that because I knew I wasn't going to have to depend on a first rate publication record to get an academic job. My goal for my post-doc was to do good work, and be able to live and travel around Europe for a couple of years, and I picked the post-doc that would let me do that.

I went into industry and worked as a lab scientist at my first job, then senior scientist and team lead with a few bachelor's and master's-degreed scientists in my team. Then I went full into management of scientists. After the third year of work, I no longer spent any time at the bench.