Stat Ph.D. job placement rates

[StatlyDude]

On PHD.org, I saw the following job placement rates for some stat ph.d. programs:

Texas A & M (70%), Penn (67%), UIUC (70%), Penn State (72%), Chapel Hill (76%) ...

These are highly ranked programs, yet the placement rates hover around 70%, why are they so low?

UT Dallas, apparently is a low-ranked program, yet the placement rates is 92% and median time to completion is 3.9 years, one of the shortest.

If I were to choose among these programs, I would prefer the UT Dallas because obtaining a job and completing the program within reasonable time are the most important factors. But I'm sure the rankings are important, too. How should I interpret these data? Why are some of you anxious to attend programs with low placement rates?

Also, isn't the starting salary for ph.d. stat around $70k? That doesn't seem very high considering the amount of time invested: top UG's get more than that in engineering, consulting etc. right out of college. Do most ph.d. candidates care about high salary or only about intellectual satisfaction?

[JustChill]

I'm in a different field, but have encountered a similar trend. I've been told that this is usually because people from the higher ranked programs tend to be applying to a very narrow and limited number of openings -- usually spots that are extremely competitive. Someone from UT Dallas, on the other hand, may not necessarily be trying to get the same "caliber" job as someone from UNC Chapel Hill. They might be perfectly happy staying in Dallas and working for a smaller organization or institution, and not trying to enter the national job market.

There is, of course, a lot of assumption and speculation in this theory, but it sound plausible to me.

[statsguy]

On PHD.org, I saw the following job placement rates for some stat ph.d. programs:

Texas A & M (70%), Penn (67%), UIUC (70%), Penn State (72%), Chapel Hill (76%) ...

These are highly ranked programs, yet the placement rates hover around 70%, why are they so low?

UT Dallas, apparently is a low-ranked program, yet the placement rates is 92% and median time to completion is 3.9 years, one of the shortest.

If I were to choose among these programs, I would prefer the UT Dallas because obtaining a job and completing the program within reasonable time are the most important factors. But I'm sure the rankings are important, too. How should I interpret these data? Why are some of you anxious to attend programs with low placement rates?

Also, isn't the starting salary for ph.d. stat around $70k? That doesn't seem very high considering the amount of time invested: top UG's get more than that in engineering, consulting etc. right out of college. Do most ph.d. candidates care about high salary or only about intellectual satisfaction?

In general, I would ignore all of those Statistics unless you know how the site obtained those numbers. A US citizen applying for an industry position will likely have several offers to choose from. Academic job placement is much lower for ALL applicants (maybe around 30-40% depending on the year), so those that are absolutely set on academia are probably pulling the overall average down since it may take them several application cycles to get a faculty position. However, most students go into industry if they are unsuccessful in getting an academic job. Some international students are unable to get industry jobs due to citizenship/visa issues (even though a company may want to hire them), so that again is probably pulling down the average. Starting salaries for industry are closer to 90k, and around 100k at big pharma companies. Academic positions start around 50-60k.

So, to summarize, the situation is MUCH more complicated than those numbers that site reports. You have to look at each program carefully, which means talking to its students and faculty.

Edited July 16, 2010 by statsguy