Do I really want a PhD?

[avhosa]

Here is what I thought when I applied to PhD graduate programs 1-2 months ago, inferred by talking to grad-student friends, professors, and advisors:

- A PhD is preferable to an MS because you are more likely to receive funding as a PhD, i.e. you won't be drowning in debt after grad school.

- Earning a PhD is a 5 year investment.

- A PhD will give me an edge in industry job applications.

- PhD is required to advance into a higher position in industry.

- Even if my plans to enter industry fall through, I can always seek to become a college professor/researcher.

- It's difficult to re-enter academia once you're in industry, so I might as well earn my PhD while my connections with my undergrad profs are still fresh.

How naive I was. What I've slowly uncovered since, by reading various forums on the internet and looking critically at what I *actually* see around me:

- A 50% average attrition rate is not uncommon among PhD programs.

- Only 70% of new PhDs will find employment after earning their degree, and 70% of those who find employment become post-docs, which pays approximately 35k, which is comparable to the salary of a start-up position in industry.

- Requiring *7 YEARS* to complete a PhD is the new norm.

- The length of a post-doctorship is indeterminate, and there's still no guarantee that one will enter a tenure track after being a post-doc since the market for professorships is so grim.

- MS are actually *more* competitive than PhDs in entry-level industry positions, since a PhD is often seen as "ivory tower" and suggest to the employer than that one has myopic career interests.

- While a PhD is required for higher industry positions, without several years of entry-level work experience, it does one no good.

This revelation is only further corroborated by conversations and experiences I've had lately:

1) Being desperate to find a job, the post-doc I worked under in lab applied to a teaching position at a community college. She was rejected because she was deemed "overqualified". Alternatively, my dad, who only has an MS, acquired a teaching job at the same community college.

2) A friend tells me that several biochemistry PhDs are applying to the same positions she is as a mere BS in a company that has little to do with biochemistry. She and the PhDs got hired but are paid nearly the same salary.

To be honest, I feel somewhat betrayed by my grad-school friends and especially my professors for not informing me of the full facts. While I had a general sense of the sacrifices necessary for grad school, I had no idea the conditions and job prospects were so utterly grim, particularly regarding someone interested in entering the private sector. I have read that it's considered rather gauche among professors to talk about grad school negatively, as it's in all their best interests to keep creating more grad students for cheap labor. As for my grad student friends, I suspect they're still somewhat delusional themselves and are really in no position to offer sound career advice.

I've received several interview offers from the PhD programs I've applied to, but instead of being thrilled, I'm terrified. To add to my confusion, I will have to sacrifice a wonderful 1-year relationship I currently have in order to pursue a PhD (he has several job offers that he can't pass up that are in different locations from the grad schools I've applied to).

So please, scientists in industry, anonymous college professors, embittered ex-PhD candidates: what should I do? I've heard of several PhD drop-outs who are awarded an MS or an MPhil degree instead. How common is it for grad schools to offer an en-route MS? What is a MPhil worth?

[Eigen]

I don't think it's very common for grad schools to offer an en-route MS....

That said, people who fail out of grad school after a certain point are often given a "consolation" MS. And because it's given for people that didn't pass qualifiers, or had too low of a GPA or somesuch, it does carry a stigma.

I do know a few people that have switched from PhD track to MS track around the 2 year mark, it all depends on approval from your boss at that point.

What particular part of the private sector do you want to work in? Everyone I know in drug design/development and biopharm companies have PhDs.... The ones that don't are basically just lab techs. The entry level salary might be the same, but you'll never really rise that far without a doctorate, from what I've seen.

Just my 2 cents worth.

And the post-doc pay depends on where you work, too... And your specific subfield. NIH funds post-docs at around 50k per year, another friend of mine is getting 40k+benefits.

The typical biology post-doc, from what I've seen, is around 3-4 years, and is a chance for you to develop your reputation and career. The more pubs you had as a grad student and the better known your name was, the less time you need to spend in a post-doc. Sometimes there's a need for several post-doc positions before you've developed the network you need for jobs.

[Langoustine]

I originally wrote a lot but I will cut it down to this:

What professors, researchers, PhD students, and other folks with a PhD or MS have told me is that if you are not 100% behind your decision to go to grad school you probably shouldn't...You seem well aware of the lifestyle you are getting into...just think about what career track you want and if a PhD or MS or neither will work for you. And this really depends on your field here.

Grad school is a big commitment (like you said, up 7 years!) and not something to enter in on a whim. Good luck!

[BlueRose]

I'm applying for PhDs now, but I'm several years out of undergrad, and have worked in two very different places (biotech startup, academic lab). So I think I'm going in with my eyes wide open.

- A PhD is preferable to an MS because you are more likely to receive funding as a PhD, i.e. you won't be drowning in debt after grad school.

This is true; MS programs can be obscenely expensive. But if you factor in the time difference, it's not so bad. (2 year masters)*(-$40K/year) + (4 years working)*($60K/year) > (6 year PhD)*($25K/year)

- Earning a PhD is a 5 year investment.

If you're lucky, good, and smart in your choice of model systems, it's possible. If your PI allows it, that is. Ask around and choose wisely.

- A PhD will give me an edge in industry job applications.

- PhD is required to advance into a higher position in industry.

Yes, it does. Credential inflation is real. I thought I could get away with entering with a BS and working my way up; I saw no particular reason why I wanted to go to grad school when I could do the same kind of work in industry, only with better resources and twice the salary. I went to a startup, kicked butt, and got promoted to a mid-level RA position. Then the startup went out of business, and oh boy did reality set in. I couldn't get hired to save my life. Somebody gave it to me straight: "Look, you can clearly think for yourself. We can't hire you for a BS-level position. And we can't hire you for anything else, because you're a BS." The same thing happened to my former boss, who had his MS (and was the best scientist I've worked for, PhD or no).

If you don't have a PhD, you'll be doing grunt work. That's how it is. If you stay a grunt, you'll be replaced by people who are cheaper than you are, either fresh grads or people overseas. Good luck getting hired after 40. If you move up, you'd better pray nothing happens to your company, because you won't be able to take the promotion with you. Most people move sideways, into sales, administration, and the like. You'll be competing with underemployed PhDs for those jobs, and will be at a disadvantage (if only because clients are unduly impressed with the PhD).

- Even if my plans to enter industry fall through, I can always seek to become a college professor/researcher.

LOL! Good luck with that. Grad students, especially the ones who go straight through, tend to get stuck on the idea of being a professor. They have no idea what it's like out in the real world, and imagine it as some horrible anti-intellectual wasteland (encouraged by their own professors, who they have not yet learned to question). Some people will take *anything* in order to stay in academics. This means that even the horrible jobs, in awful locations, with the dumbest students imaginable, are swamped with highly qualified applicants. It's not as bad as the poor suckers in humanities have it, but still.

- It's difficult to re-enter academia once you're in industry, so I might as well earn my PhD while my connections with my undergrad profs are still fresh.

Somewhat true. A few years won't hurt. More than that, and you might have a problem; you'll forget the coursework you don't use (most of it!), and your letters might not be as fresh as they could have been. Also, if you're working in industry, you might have a harder time accounting for yourself, with fewer publications and maybe some of your work under non-disclosure.

How naive I was. What I've slowly uncovered since, by reading various forums on the internet and looking critically at what I *actually* see around me:

- A 50% average attrition rate is not uncommon among PhD programs.

- Only 70% of new PhDs will find employment after earning their degree, and 70% of those who find employment become post-docs, which pays approximately 35k, which is comparable to the salary of a start-up position in industry.

- Requiring *7 YEARS* to complete a PhD is the new norm.

Yes, this is all true. It's not the easiest path, nor is it frankly the most economically rational. Postdocs usually make more than 35K, but not much more.

- The length of a post-doctorship is indeterminate, and there's still no guarantee that one will enter a tenure track after being a post-doc since the market for professorships is so grim.

In biosciences, multiple postdocs are the norm. The academic window of opportunity seems to be 5-7 years post-PhD...before that, you don't have enough papers, and after that you've gone stale. The industry window is earlier. This means that you can go for academics, barely miss, and then you're done (and looking at a career change as a broke 40-year-old).

- MS are actually *more* competitive than PhDs in entry-level industry positions, since a PhD is often seen as "ivory tower" and suggest to the employer than that one has myopic career interests.

This can be true. It's hard to find a competent MS in some cases; they've all gone off to PhD. But you don't want the academic MS for that. They're looking for specialized technical skills (large-scale fermentation, biostatistics, etc).

- While a PhD is required for higher industry positions, without several years of entry-level work experience, it does one no good.

Yeah, you'll get hired at entry-level, even as a PhD. But you'll get promoted much faster.

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

I don't really have much input, other than you should also direct this question to the Chronicle of Higher Education's forum. Plenty of profs there will give critical advice and experiences about academia and graduate school.

[avhosa]

@ BlueRose:

Thanks for the splendid advice. You brought up some extremely compelling points that I hadn't considered, particularly:

"

Somewhat true. A few years won't hurt. More than that, and you might have a problem; you'll forget the coursework you don't use (most of it!), and your letters might not be as fresh as they could have been."

I am reminded that this is why my dad encouraged me to pursue my PhD. He contemplated furthering his education after his MS, but never got to it, because re-entering academia is difficult.

"Yes, it does. Credential inflation is real...If you don't have a PhD, you'll be doing grunt work. That's how it is. If you stay a grunt, you'll be replaced by people who are cheaper than you are, either fresh grads or people overseas. Good luck getting hired after 40. If you move up, you'd better pray nothing happens to your company, because you won't be able to take the promotion with you."

and...

"It's hard to find a competent MS in some cases; they've all gone off to PhD. But you don't want the academic MS for that. They're looking for specialized technical skills (large-scale fermentation, biostatistics, etc)."

Yeah, you'll get hired at entry-level, even as a PhD. But you'll get promoted much faster.

I guess my only concern would be how I can market myself as a PhD for lower level positions -- might they think that I will be unwilling to do entry-level grunt work and will demand to be paid more because I'm a PhD? How do I convince employers that I am not above grunt-work for the experience?

Also, is there's anything I can do to make myself a more appealing job candidate while I'm completing my PhD? I've contemplated perhaps earning some certificates (e.g. Marketing, Business, etc...) to diversify myself.

[Sevi]

I'm so glad to see this post here. I have recently found myself in the exact same place. I have received interviews from 4/5 universities I have applied to, but am more hesitant in my excitement because I've been questioning the benefit of a PhD. I'd feel awful declining acceptances from fantastic schools because I might be getting "cold feet" but also don't want to feel trapped in a bad decision later.

As an undergrad and even now working in an academic lab I've always been told that there are career options in biology/biomedical science other than running my own lab or teaching, yet no one has really told me what those options are other than working in a patent office, being an editor for a scientific journal or working in quality control for some food/plastics/oil business. All things I really don't want to do. There have to be more options. Why is it so difficult for someone to tell me or to find a list somewhere?

I've even thought about wanting to work in an assisted reproduction lab/clinic (which resulted in me becoming an egg donor) but don't know how those are structured to even know what positions are available and what credentials would be needed to work there.

So far it seems like earning a PhD is a good idea so you have a little more security in finding another job if a start up biotech company falls through. But I also don't want to get into a 5-7 year commitment PhD program just to use to get into a career fair when they actually WILL tell me what career options there are other than PI or Prof.

[Eigen]

The biggest pro I've heard for making yourself industry viable is to pick your boss well- pick someone that's working on applications! Industry will always be impressed by patents you've secured, systems you've developed, techniques you've worked out, etc.

[BlueRose]

Also, is there's anything I can do to make myself a more appealing job candidate while I'm completing my PhD? I've contemplated perhaps earning some certificates (e.g. Marketing, Business, etc...) to diversify myself.

I'm operating on hearsay, now, but I've heard that getting management-type certificates is one of the worst things you can do. It implies that you expect to come in and get your own group to manage right away, and you'll be upset to find yourself in a subordinate role.

Mostly they want to see if you can adapt to the culture in industry (team-oriented). If there's any way for you to work with industry, whether for a few years before grad school, as a collaboration during grad school, or even just hanging out with industry people, that's a plus.

Also, what Eigen said.

[avhosa]

I'm operating on hearsay, now, but I've heard that getting management-type certificates is one of the worst things you can do. It implies that you expect to come in and get your own group to manage right away, and you'll be upset to find yourself in a subordinate role.

Mostly they want to see if you can adapt to the culture in industry (team-oriented). If there's any way for you to work with industry, whether for a few years before grad school, as a collaboration during grad school, or even just hanging out with industry people, that's a plus.

Also, what Eigen said.

Again, thanks for the excellent advice. But would a certificate in something like Marketing imply that I want to manage people? I just want to do one to see if I can go into sales, not management.

@Eigen: What do you mean by applications? Do you mean, a professor who's working on a product for use in industry?

@Sevi: I know how you feel! I'm still definitely going to the interviews. Who knows? I might instantly fall in love with the atmosphere and the professors. I want to earn a PhD for reasons other than to boost my credentials. I enjoy the university environment and (I think) I'll enjoy the research.

Also, a general question to anyone who can answer it: would a genetics PhD be transferable to other fields, like biochemistry? My dream job would be to work in plant breeding or something similar, but I realize that there may not be as many jobs in that than in biochemistry.

[Eigen]

Honestly, if you want a more applicable job, I'd go to a Molecular Bio type program. Traditional biochemistry has very little industrial appeal these days (from what I've seen), whereas molecular bio has far more applicability.

And as far as applications, I mean things that are applicable to actual problems. Not basic research, research for researches sake, but research actually targeted at solving specific and relevant problems with practical solutions. You want to be able to get patents out of what you're doing in the lab to accompany your papers.

[BlueRose]

But would a certificate in something like Marketing imply that I want to manage people? I just want to do one to see if I can go into sales, not management.

I'm not sure you'd need a certificate to do that. AFAIK, the people around here trying to sell me stuff (expensive microscopes, mostly) got their jobs by knowing the product and having some people skills.

@Eigen: What do you mean by applications? Do you mean, a professor who's working on a product for use in industry?

Again, what Eigen said. I'd also add that some techniques are far more "industrial" than others. If you spend the next six years staring at fruit fly wings, you're going to have a harder time of it than somebody who spent that time culturing tumor cells, even if you were both doing basic research. They don't want to train you (unfortunate, but true). It's competitive out there, and they're probably hiring for an immediate need, and they're going to take the person who has done Specific Technique X a million times during their PhD. Never mind that six months from now, that project will be dead, and the person will be doing something completely different. Everyone knows this, but such is human nature.

If you're set on industry, I recommend trying to weasel your way into that scene however you can; there's probably a networking group in your area. If your school has an alumni database, you could even email people who have gone to industry and ask to talk to them over lunch. (People are amazingly willing to do this.) This will give you a better perspective of what you're getting into.

[waddle]

Also, a general question to anyone who can answer it: would a genetics PhD be transferable to other fields, like biochemistry? My dream job would be to work in plant breeding or something similar, but I realize that there may not be as many jobs in that than in biochemistry.

From what I've heard, a Ph.D. is not so much the determinant of your career, but a license to practice professional science. I can think of one fellow who did a Ph.D. in immunology, and is now working as a postdoc doing some truly awesome isotope geochemistry, directly determining the body temperature of extinct fauna from the fossil record (i.e. he's building a paleothermometer to find out whether dinosaurs are cold- or warm-blooded, using their fossilized bones). A Ph.D. isn't your career, but rather a ticket to a career.

[avhosa]

Thanks all for the great replies/suggestions.

I'm definitely going to try to look to join a maize genetics lab rather than an arabidopsis genetics lab -- perhaps something into biofuels. From what I hear from my current lab PI, model organisms are going the way of the dinosaur, and it's increasing difficult to find funding for fruit-fly/arabidopsis/C. elegans. This is coming from someone who made his name in arabidopsis.

I might be getting a patent from the work that I'm doing right now on brassicas, so I suppose I have a head start on that one! It will probably have nothing to do with the company I will (hopefully) join in the future, but at least I can say that I've had product development experience.

[starmaker]

As an undergrad and even now working in an academic lab I've always been told that there are career options in biology/biomedical science other than running my own lab or teaching, yet no one has really told me what those options are other than working in a patent office, being an editor for a scientific journal or working in quality control for some food/plastics/oil business. All things I really don't want to do. There have to be more options. Why is it so difficult for someone to tell me or to find a list somewhere?

Off the top of my head, I can think of big industrial biotech/pharma, biotech/pharma startups, working in a national lab, working in biodefense at a defense contractor or FFRDC, getting a commission as a science officer in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, writing grade school science textbooks, patent law (not the same as "working in a patent office," and you'd need to get a JD for it as well) and working in science policy.

[starmaker]

- A 50% average attrition rate is not uncommon among PhD programs.

So ask all your prospective programs about their attrition rates, and use that to filter them. Oh, and also look up their median time-to-completion - you can find this at phds.org. Some programs will have a median of 8 years, or more. Some will have a median of 5.

- MS are actually *more* competitive than PhDs in entry-level industry positions, since a PhD is often seen as "ivory tower" and suggest to the employer than that one has myopic career interests.

This might be true in some fields, but in biotech they want PhDs (and if you're interested in working for the federal government, they care a lot about credentials).

1) Being desperate to find a job, the post-doc I worked under in lab applied to a teaching position at a community college. She was rejected because she was deemed "overqualified". Alternatively, my dad, who only has an MS, acquired a teaching job at the same community college.

But it doesn't sound like you want to be an adjunct at a community college (neither would I, at least not as my primary source of income).

2) A friend tells me that several biochemistry PhDs are applying to the same positions she is as a mere BS in a company that has little to do with biochemistry. She and the PhDs got hired but are paid nearly the same salary.

Well, sure. A PhD is training in a specific field. If you're seeking jobs that have nothing to do with that field, you can't expect people to give you special treatment in hiring.

While I had a general sense of the sacrifices necessary for grad school, I had no idea the conditions and job prospects were so utterly grim, particularly regarding someone interested in entering the private sector.

They're...not, really. At least around here ("here" being one of the big biotech centers of the US), biotech got whapped pretty hard by the recession, but it seems to be emerging from the gloom, based on what I've seen on job boards. Your interest in entering the private sector makes you better off, really, than people only interested in academic careers.

I've received several interview offers from the PhD programs I've applied to, but instead of being thrilled, I'm terrified. To add to my confusion, I will have to sacrifice a wonderful 1-year relationship I currently have in order to pursue a PhD (he has several job offers that he can't pass up that are in different locations from the grad schools I've applied to).

So please, scientists in industry, anonymous college professors, embittered ex-PhD candidates: what should I do? I've heard of several PhD drop-outs who are awarded an MS or an MPhil degree instead. How common is it for grad schools to offer an en-route MS? What is a MPhil worth?

A master's is good in some fields (anything engineering, for example), but it's worth little in the bio world.

Here's the thing. A PhD will in fact cause you to be considered overqualified for some jobs. The point is that it's also opening a door to other jobs - you'll be considered overqualified for "store clerk" or "lab tech," but now you'll be qualified for a bunch of industry and government scientist jobs that you weren't before. If you would rather do a job that a PhD would overqualify you for, then yeah, you don't want a PhD. The point of getting a PhD is to be qualified for the jobs that you would have been underqualified for otherwise.

Honestly, you might be overly worried. I understand this sort of worry coming from someone in a field where there are few non-academic jobs. But you're in a field that is more employable.

[avhosa]

@starmaker

Thanks for the great response. I think I've just about overcome my "PhD heebie-jeebies" and am now (slowly) settling into a more realistic perspective, partly due to this forum, and partly due to some reading I've been doing on the internet, particularly this: http://cenblog.org/j...anybodys-guess/

While not providing any definitive conclusions, the article is at least skeptical of the notion that there are too many PhDs in the job market. IMO the most compelling point she brings up is the fact that people have been complaining that there are too many PhDs for YEARS now, even before the recession, even if the average salary of science PhDs continues to increase, albeit modestly. Given, it's in the physical, not the biological, sciences.

Edited January 21, 2011 by avhosa

[greengrass2]

Sorry to say this, but I've worked in big pharma for 4 years now, and if you don't have a Ph.D., no one will even bother to listen to you. People with M.S. degrees only differ in salary from people with just B.S. degrees. If you want to be on the top, go for the Ph.D. If you want to be a lab rat or in sales, stick to the M.S.

Also, getting a Ph.D. means you're becoming specialized. Along with being "over-qualified" due to your degree of education, this can be a set back.

An M.S. can be a good thing, especially if you want to steer away from the lab and enter a more business based aspect of research or science.

Edited January 29, 2011 by greengrass2

[GutLogic]

I'm not as qualified to comment as many of the others who have (I'm at the same stage as you, getting interview invites from grad schools), but I could really relate to your post, as I went through those same lines of thought about grad school when I was deciding whether to apply. What finally pushed me past my apprehension to "phase 3" of my thought process about it, was a Career Day for BioSci PhDs at my university, which I was able to attend through my job. It brought a lot of speakers from "alternative" careers for PhDs, some of which I thought were interesting and some of which I didn't. The overall idea I got from it, however, was:

1) Regardless of what, specifically, you get your PhD in, having a PhD means you know how to think and learn new things. You are specializing so there are some limitations but almost all of the speakers had ended up in rewarding careers that they hadn't at all anticipated based on their PhD research projects. They could lay out the path that got them to where they are now, and each step was in some way enabled by their previous one, but when you looked at the beginning and end it really seemed as though almost anything was possible.

2) A lot of grad students who attended the event did not have a clear idea what they could do with a PhD besides become a professor. There are probably too many PhDs in the job market trying to be professors simply because they aren't aware of any other appealing options, and their PIs have told them all along that being a professor is the only way to go. Since you know you want to go into industry, you already have a bit of an advantage.

3) If you have an open mind about career options (ie aren't set on becoming a professor), a PhD will only work to your advantage.

4) A post-doc can be seen, rather than as a stop-gap before you can get a "real" job, a training opportunity where you can hone new skills and possibly adjust your career trajectory from what you were doing in grad school. My thinking on the subject really changed when I found out that they typically earn quite a bit more money than grad students... But besides that, a lot of grad programs post their student outcomes (or you can ask about it at your interviews), and whether students go into a post-doc or a career-track job after grad school depends on the field of study and their career goals (the frustrated post-docs that I've heard from are very often molecular bio/biochem people who are seeking faculty positions at major research universities).

Also, a note on time to graduation... From what I've seen, that depends a lot on the PI and a lot on the individual student. It is entirely possible for a motivated student with good self-discipline and a supportive PI to graduate in 5-6 years (I recently saw this happen in the biochem lab I'm working in now). On the other hand, I've seen frustrated grad students with more distant, less supportive PIs struggle to graduate due to lack of guidance (saw this in my undergrad research lab). I've also heard of students lacking in self-discipline or time management skills, spending relatively little time per week actually working on their projects, and naturally they take quite a bit longer to graduate. I guess it's just a matter of choosing your PI carefully- and you will probably get the chance when you visit to talk to their current grad students and find out the actual situation in that lab.