Reality on job situation for social science PhD's

[shockwave]

Hi everyone. Just a quick question. I hear a lot of people who are very anti-PhD slam the prospect of getting one because of the lack of jobs.

For me, I am certainly not doing it for the job prospects and am doing it for my passion and interest in the discipline. Money is certainly not the main priority. Moreover, I am not particularly set on living anywhere, state, country, continent, I am very open. I was wondering with someone with this kind of outlook what was the reality of the situation in the opinion of others in the same boat. It is easy to be discouraged by people who don't really want a PhD but what about from those who are actively engaged and interested in the field.

Thanks.

[lewin]

It's great to be passionate about one's career, I'm driven by intrinsic interest too. Same boat as you!

But passion doesn't put food on one's plate. "Bad job prospects" is something people should be worried about and I think sometimes academics don't think about this enough. For example, a professor I know advised students that their priority should be to get the best grad training and post doc position possible, even if it means significant debt. When tenure-track jobs were relatively guaranteed (20-30 years ago) that strategy made sense. But now, who would take on $20 or $50 thousand in loans when they might not get a job afterwards? Much too risky.

If more people realistically considered their job prospects and decided not to attend graduate school it would be better for everybody. In the end, it's a hard truth that if you can't get paid for your work then you need to find something else to do. Otherwise that's a hobby, not a job.

I'm giving myself two years applying for academic jobs. If it doesn't happen in that time I'm going elsewhere. And I'd rather stab myself than be an adjunct instructor with a 3-2 teaching load and no job security making $25,000 a year.

(BTW it's good your flexible on location, that's almost mandatory nowadays.)

[TakeruK]

It is easy to be discouraged by people who don't really want a PhD but what about from those who are actively engaged and interested in the field.

I know I don't fit your mindset of "doing it for passion and interest", and I'm not in the social sciences either. But it seems like your post would label people like me as "anti-PhD" and/or "don't really want a PhD" (as opposed to "those who are actively engaged and interested in the field").

I just want to say that the people you describe (e.g. me) do have passion for our work. I am actively engaged and interested, doing all the things that someone who wants to enter the academic world should be doing (performing research, attending seminars, reading pre-prints of papers, attending and presenting at conferences etc.). But you don't have to be willing to be devoted to the field (i.e. by being willing to do it under any conditions) in order to count as being "passionate". I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with this level of commitment to the field/work -- each person has different desires in life and you just gotta do what makes you happy!

However, I think it's a little bit naive to consider that the only reason to get a PhD is to completely devote yourself to the field. Or that if you are not willing to do so, you are "anti-PhD' or "don't really want one". And I don't think I actually go around and tell people NOT to get PhDs (unless their career goals do not require PhDs). I just think it's important to know that not everyone who gets a PhD will get the job they are looking for, and especially not if you are set on a particular location.

Maybe I'm just taking your post too personally, but I just felt compelled to respond based on the words you used!

Edited August 23, 2012 by TakeruK

[Dal PhDer]

To be honest, I think PhD students in the social sciences have a far easier time than other fields. I know that the job market is shifting considerably, and positions that use to be unattainable for PhDs (of the idea that you have 'too much education') are now being specifically tailored for PhDs- especially in policy, government and NGOs. I see a major culture shift happening...do you remember back when a BA/BSc/etc was your ticket to a great job? You would go into a 4 year program and have a great career (I am talking a couple generations ago). Now an undergraduate in a lot of fields won't take you far, you need to go onto graduate work. I think there's a huge shift now that more people are carrying onto their PhDs - this is my opinion and experience, I actually don't know the facts, I could be completely off.

I think there's a plus and a negative to this. Jobs that PhDs probably wouldn't have considered before such as research positions at private or public institutions - which traditionally require undergraduates and/or masters degrees - are now focusing on attracting PhDs.

I think when people say the job market is poor for PhDs, they have in mind that PhDs will only be trying for the TT positions. (I do agree that there is probably less of those available now than before, but I also think that in a couple years as the baby boomers retire, you'll see more positions available in these areas)...But there are also a lot of jobs outside of a University/College for PhDs, that's why students should not only focus on their own research and becoming experts in it, but also focus on gaining additional research exposure and skills- as it will make you marketable to additional opportunities.

[BrokenRecord]

Shockwave,

For starters (assuming you want a job outside of academia), employers of now don't look at resumes, they google your name and if nothing comes up; your resume' goes in the trash, regardless of how smart or qualified you are. Creating an insightful, expansive and respectable online presence is key to giving yourself a one up on the competition---especially if you are in a discipline that is over-saturated or not easily marketable. If your field is your passion and you are computer savy, write a blog, join a few professional message boards (with your full name), sign up for a social networking website (twitter, facebook) and engage in articles. When you Google your name, these attributes will come up and give the employer a more well rounded insight into who you are.

Secondly, I don't think the PhD itself should be discouraged, but rather incorporated with a technical skill set that is marketable in this economy. Esoteric disciplines, even those in the natural sciences like general biology, organic chemistry and classical physics, won't get you anywhere---contrary to the popular belief that science is the path to job security. Here are some applied science and humanities disciplines that have fairly marketable sub-fields:

Chemistry --> Toxicology

Biology ----> Pharmacology, Environmental Health

Physics ----> Paper and materials science, Nanotechnology, petroleum engineering

Political Science -----> Quantitative methods, International development, Security Studies

History ------> Digital archiving

I graduated with two degrees in political science and environmental biology and would also suggest being as interdisciplinary as possible, especially cross-disciplines (quant field and humanities for example). Since you are in a social science field, I'd suggest taking as many statistics and math courses as you can handle. My current field is exposure sciences (occupational hygiene) which commands proficient knowledge in physics, chemistry, biology, risk assessment (statistics), engineering (especially hvac systems) and government/law (OSHA and EPA regulations). Even though we technically have less "lab training" than a biology or chemistry MS who starts out at $35k in industry, an MS in my field nets an average $70-80k starting range precisely because of the applied, "real world" skill set. I'm not sure how well PhDs in my field fare, but I would say unless they want to go into academia, it would not be worth loosing 3 years of work experience--which is crucial for being a CIH (certified industrial hygienist).

Whatever you do, I'm all about the mantra of do what you love and find a way to make money off of it. No use in going into a field because of its perceived/temporary job security of now. But also know that you do wish to take that leap into a field with job insecurity or known over-saturation, that you will have to work thrice as hard to distinguish yourself and make the career you wish to have.

[juilletmercredi]

Are you asking about the general job market or the academic job market?

If it's academia you want, then the social science job market is better than the humanities but not as good as the physical sciences. It also depends on your social science, of course, as well as where you get your PhD and what your CV looks like when you're finished. A well-published PhD who went to a top program with an excellent adviser will be competitive for many jobs when she finishes. I have heard that there is a need for professors in Australia and potentially Canada if you are willing to go *anywhere*, but this is only second-hand from posters at CHE forums and such.

If you are interested in the broader market - including jobs that don't really require PhDs as well as jobs that require and prefer them - then I think that market's doing okay.

I'm definitely not willing to live anywhere nor am I willing to make less than I think I'm worth. But everyone has their trade-offs. Personally, I'm not very set on academia in and of itself, but I'm passionate about my field and don't want to leave it. My field is one of those applied ones that is very applicable outside of academia. I'd even wager that most people working in it are not academics.

[BrokenRecord]

I have heard that there is a need for professors in Australia

This is absolutely true for those willing to take the plunge.

[lewin]

There are some professor jobs in Canada too, but they're no less competitive. So applying here can improve your odds because you're applying to more places, but don't think it will be easier than a comparable American university. The market is tight right now, this season I've only seen two Canadian jobs in my subdiscipline.

[Dal PhDer]

I have heard that there is a need for professors in Australia

My bags are packed and I'm ready to leave! Gonna get myself a koala!

[mandarin.orange]

This article came out in The Chronicle a few days ago about the lack of data tracking where PhDs go, if not to the professoriate. Very interesting read, and looks like the investigators want to compile a database of their own.

In Search of Hard Data on Nonacademic Careers

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Shockwave,

For starters (assuming you want a job outside of academia), employers of now don't look at resumes, they google your name and if nothing comes up; your resume' goes in the trash, regardless of how smart or qualified you are. Creating an insightful, expansive and respectable online presence is key to giving yourself a one up on the competition---especially if you are in a discipline that is over-saturated or not easily marketable. If your field is your passion and you are computer savy, write a blog, join a few professional message boards (with your full name), sign up for a social networking website (twitter, facebook) and engage in articles. When you Google your name, these attributes will come up and give the employer a more well rounded insight into who you are.

Secondly, I don't think the PhD itself should be discouraged, but rather incorporated with a technical skill set that is marketable in this economy. Esoteric disciplines, even those in the natural sciences like general biology, organic chemistry and classical physics, won't get you anywhere---contrary to the popular belief that science is the path to job security. Here are some applied science and humanities disciplines that have fairly marketable sub-fields:

Chemistry --> Toxicology

Biology ----> Pharmacology, Environmental Health

Physics ----> Paper and materials science, Nanotechnology, petroleum engineering

Political Science -----> Quantitative methods, International development, Security Studies

History ------> Digital archiving

I graduated with two degrees in political science and environmental biology and would also suggest being as interdisciplinary as possible, especially cross-disciplines (quant field and humanities for example). Since you are in a social science field, I'd suggest taking as many statistics and math courses as you can handle. My current field is exposure sciences (occupational hygiene) which commands proficient knowledge in physics, chemistry, biology, risk assessment (statistics), engineering (especially hvac systems) and government/law (OSHA and EPA regulations). Even though we technically have less "lab training" than a biology or chemistry MS who starts out at $35k in industry, an MS in my field nets an average $70-80k starting range precisely because of the applied, "real world" skill set. I'm not sure how well PhDs in my field fare, but I would say unless they want to go into academia, it would not be worth loosing 3 years of work experience--which is crucial for being a CIH (certified industrial hygienist).

Whatever you do, I'm all about the mantra of do what you love and find a way to make money off of it. No use in going into a field because of its perceived/temporary job security of now. But also know that you do wish to take that leap into a field with job insecurity or known over-saturation, that you will have to work thrice as hard to distinguish yourself and make the career you wish to have.

I have a few disagreements..

I searched toxicology PHD in careerbuilder and got 28 jobs. I searched materials chemistry PHD and got 128 jobs. I searched analytical chemistry PHD and got 113 jobs. Now careerbuilder may not be accurate, but in general, more jobs generated on careerbuilder, the more in demand they are.

petroleum engineering is its own major. has nothing to do with physics. Petroleum engineering is about finding oil and getting it out of the ground. Its more closely related to geology and mechanical engineering.

nanotech is not really marketable. the news about nanotech > the real industrial applications of nanotech. I did my BS thesis in this, it was advertised as "highly marketable"... The reality is that industrially no one is hiring. Why? The life cycle of fabrication technologies is decades. So companies hire a consultant, possibly an older tenured professor, to do this as a one-time project instead of have staff scientists. You can imagine how much I loved hearing my advisor tell me that. And I saw it in action. My advisor had a phone call right during a lab meeting about a consulting offer. Also, the starting degree in this industry is graduate level.

Now here's my recommendation:

Find a field protected by regulations or involves finance. If your field competes on the free market, your job is not secure. That's why doctors are making money. By all means they shouldn't be. British doctors all only have a bachelors degree in medicine and make far less money. You can't practice medicine here without a MD. That's why you can't ship British doctors here to compete with native doctors and outcompete them. The recommendation of industrial hygiene is a great one. They are protected by regulation.

Don't worry about applied vs. theoretical. Lots of applied fields have trouble finding jobs, lots of theoretical fields have plenty of jobs because they can move into finance positions.

This is why I disagree with toxicology and pharmacology. Toxicology is not a regulated field. Neither is pharmacology. Pharmacy is regulated but you have to pay to play. Nothing prevents a biochemist or straight up biologist from taking a toxicology or pharmacology jobs and all the jobs I've seen posted on careerbuilder show "biochemistry or toxicology/pharmacology" as the requirement.

There's also no "soft" barrier in terms of a highly quantitative degree that most people can't take. Why are jobs in analytical/physical/materials chemistry doing better than bio/organic, even in the traditional areas of bio/organic dominance like pharmaceuticals? The only explanation: they are more quantitative.

Not everyone can pass classes in things like quantum mechanics, statistical thermodynamics, molecular spectroscopy, etc. and also produce research in these areas. Hell, I remember taking molecular spectroscopy and no one understanding group theory. If you can't pass molecular spectroscopy, at least at a general physical chemistry level, at my alma mater you simply do not get a BS in Chemistry; if you don't pass graduate level molecular spectroscopy, you simply don't get a MS/PhD in analytical or physical chemistry, and its not easy to pass.

Just look up the book my alma mater uses for graduate level molecular spectroscopy class: "Principles of Nonlinear Optical Spectroscopy". What a book that is. Really nasty stuff like complex integration and Green functions come up. That's stuff not everyone can do. Hell, that's stuff most people, even chemistry grad students, can't do.

Now you may ask, so what. What's the point of doing all this crazy hard math? Well the point is so that you can prove you're quantitative and therefore fit for finance. If things don't work out, go to finance. My alma mater sent not a few chemists to investment banks because they did their research in highly quantitative fields like computational biochemistry (stuff like protein folding or gene networks) or computational physical chemistry (stuff like predicting solid-state spectra or X-ray crystallography software).

I like my field now that I've found a highly applied project to work on. However I'm not giving myself any illusions about "applied = job" and I'm trying to break down my mental barrier to working in finance (as opposed to working in a technical position in industry or academia).

[BrokenRecord]

I searched toxicology PHD in careerbuilder and got 28 jobs. I searched materials chemistry PHD and got 128 jobs. I searched analytical chemistry PHD and got 113 jobs. Now careerbuilder may not be accurate, but in general, more jobs generated on careerbuilder, the more in demand they are.

I beg to differ. The reality is that most professional-level jobs are not advertised over the internet. Especially when you add in PhD to your search, the overwhelming majority of PhDs in those fields don't go on careerbuilder or even send a resume'---they are actively recruited before they graduate. To gauge there is only a demand for roughly 28 toxicology PhDs when there are hundreds which graduate every year would effectively put some of them into unemployment, which is obviously not the case.

nanotech is not really marketable. the news about nanotech > the real industrial applications of nanotech. I did my BS thesis in this, it was advertised as "highly marketable"... The reality is that industrially no one is hiring. Why? The life cycle of fabrication technologies is decades. So companies hire a consultant, possibly an older tenured professor, to do this as a one-time project instead of have staff scientists. You can imagine how much I loved hearing my advisor tell me that. And I saw it in action. My advisor had a phone call right during a lab meeting about a consulting offer. Also, the starting degree in this industry is graduate level.

I'd also have to disagree. Again, nanotechnology is not marketable in a theoretical sense to which physicists would work on (hint to my previous suggestions), but in my more applied research (environmental implications of nanotechnology; environmental health, nanoporous membrane technology aka water purification systems; engineering related) it is highly marketable to utilize those technologies but also understanding its potential health effects.

I still have to concede that while it may be fun doing research for theoretical "knowledge sake", you will be far better off with an applied, marketable skill-set in this economy. But to each is its own.

[Eigen]

Personally, I think you have a very biased view of the physical and natural sciences, and their job prospects- Symmetry made most of the points I would make, and quite eloquently. Especially the point about PE being under physics. And even Environmental Toxicology, probably one of the more marketable fields in Tox is a pretty saturated job market. Pharmacology is worse, in my experience.

The other I'll point out is salary- i'm not sure where you're seeing $35k a year for Chemistry MSs... A BS in chemistry from a certified program will consistently net you nearly twice that, even in low cost-of-living areas of the country. And the demand is great. Everyone in my program had multiple job offers by the time they graduated, and that still seems to be the case. PhDs in Analytical Chem have to be one of the most marketable degrees I know of- every single friend I had in that field got several 6 figure job offers before they even graduated. And all of the friends I have that had MSs had no problems finding upper 5 figure jobs either.

And I'll also agree that nanotech, by and large, isn't all that marketable. It's a great buzzword, and people apply it to everything. But actual nanotech? Not very widely used, or even practical. Take nanoporous membranes- cool idea, but the synthetic challenges are too great for them to be widely and easily developed, without a lot more work sunk into "theoretical' research.

You focus on applications in other fields, but you'd be hard pressed to get a grant funded in any of the sciences if there isn't focus on potential applications.

And degrees in the physical sciences are marketable so many places just because of the nature of the training- they're good at math, capable at programming, and good at problem solving. I've seen people with physical science PhDs go into pretty much any industry quite easily, and don't know any that are un- or under-employed. Biological sciences are a different matter.

To the topic on hand: Social Sciences aren't as bad as the humanities, but the academic job prospects are pretty bad. I'd recommend checking out the Chronicle of Higher Ed- some great open letters from faculty discouraging students from pursuing PhDs, as well as a lot of good advice in the forums.

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

I beg to differ. The reality is that most professional-level jobs are not advertised over the internet. Especially when you add in PhD to your search, the overwhelming majority of PhDs in those fields don't go on careerbuilder or even send a resume'---they are actively recruited before they graduate. To gauge there is only a demand for roughly 28 toxicology PhDs when there are hundreds which graduate every year would effectively put some of them into unemployment, which is obviously not the case.

I'd also have to disagree. Again, nanotechnology is not marketable in a theoretical sense to which physicists would work on (hint to my previous suggestions), but in my more applied research (environmental implications of nanotechnology; environmental health, nanoporous membrane technology aka water purification systems; engineering related) it is highly marketable to utilize those technologies but also understanding its potential health effects.

I still have to concede that while it may be fun doing research for theoretical "knowledge sake", you will be far better off with an applied, marketable skill-set in this economy. But to each is its own.

While we know that there's many shadow recruiting systems, let me just point out something: if the number of "open" jobs is more, then there's probably more "shadow" jobs too. Why? If they could fill every position from the shadow recruiting system, they would, and wouldn't post so many open jobs.

My undergrad research was in nanoscale fabrication technologies. The supposed "new wave of the future". Stuff that's actually in commercial production. My professor worked as a staff scientist for GE for 20 years and he continued the research he did at GE right at my university. My research was sponsored by a local company and I met their representatives.

So this should get you thinking. Hmm, research sponsored by a local company. That means they don't have staff scientists. So where do you go when you graduate? And whatever happened to my professor's old job?

I don't see the point of distinguishing between theoretical and applied when the real difference is between "regulated service job" and "free market manufacturing job". Notice how your field is a "services" field, and mine is a "manufacturing" field, and my field competes on the free market, and yours is protected by legislation?

If theory was so bad, then what are all the PhD physicists doing on Wall Street? They didn't do applied physics. They didn't do optics or materials science. They did stuff like lattice gauge theory or particle astrophysics. It turns out that you can model alot of the stuff in finance with stuff they use in astronomy or particle physics. That stuff is useless in anything outside of astrophysics or finance.

If applied was so good, then what are all the automotive engineers doing? Civil engineers? That's ALL applied. But theres many unemployed. Why?

Like I said: 99% of manufacturing competes on the free market, so there's constant pressure on companies to compete. Compete =/= innovate. Instead it means cut costs. Staff is a big cost.

However, you can't really compete with EHS or the FDA. They're protected by law from competition. So safety inspectors and the like are guaranteed a job.

Personally, I love *applied* sciences. But in the physical sciences and engineering, applied = manufacturing stuff.

[BrokenRecord]

I don't see the point of distinguishing between theoretical and applied when the real difference is between "regulated service job" and "free market manufacturing job". Notice how your field is a "services" field, and mine is a "manufacturing" field, and my field competes on the free market, and yours is protected by legislation?

This is where you are mistaken. The primary goal of industrial hygienists coming out of my graduate program is not spearheading OSHA laws or merely being 'safety inspectors' (needless to say those jobs only require an associates degree and relevant experience), but to actively work on prevention of workplace accidents. Very different concepts. The surge of wokers comp claims have rose dramatically within the Great recession so employers are looking to hire IH's, specifically if they have a specialty in ergonomics and risk assessment, to reduce barriers to safety in the workplace initially, not to ensure if they are in compliance with OSHA like EHS inspectors. In that, it requires a good grasp of mathematical modeling (risk assessment) in addition to an understanding of OSHA laws; beyond the training of safety inspectors. This is the reason why the vast majority of industrial hygienists coming out of my program are employed in the 'free market' as you put it, in manufacturing-based fields (construction, auto, wine, coal, oil industries) and not government. But you are correct, there is virtually no competition in my field, not because of having a 'guaranteed job because of legislation', but because of relevant skill sets which are attractive to a company seeking to up their prevention controls and thus cut costs. Supply and demand in a free market economy.

And notice in my initial quote I stated applied, marketable skill-set. Just because a field has some real-world implication doesn't mean that it's marketable. Auto-engineering? Definitely applied and it seems like they are in big demand.

Perhaps it is program specific, and I am not sure about the stats as of now, but there were a staggering number of unemployed chemists. Chemical engineers? Not so much.

Again, I will agree to disagree. Ultimately, individuals have to make the choices for themselves in their own respective career paths.

EDIT: I'm glad you found a great project to work on, I know it was a rough first week. Glad you stuck it out! Good luck!

Edited September 11, 2012 by BrokenRecord

[SymmetryOfImperfection]

Agreed, I think I did not express myself clearly, so lets just agree to disagree. As it relates to the original topic though, getting a PhD in some fields gives you a heads up on the competition, and in many fields (nanotechnology for instance) the minimum degree is a PhD.

Getting a humanities PhD is not a wise choice from a purely economic point of view as 1.) it may not be free 2.) it probably doesn't open any doors except tenure track faculty, which is basically not a door.

A social sciences PhD isn't too bad. Economics and finance PhDs are extremely hot right now. Even if you did sociology or anthropology, if you have 1.) programming skills, 2.) statistical skills and 3.) finance/economics related research, I think you wouldn't do too badly.

After all, astrophysicists have an unemployment rate of exactly 0% and are heavily recruited by banks.

http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NILF1111/#term=

[Usmivka]

After all, astrophysicists have an unemployment rate of exactly 0% and are heavily recruited by banks.

http://graphicsweb.w...NILF1111/#term=

8 |

Clearly I am in the wrong field. That is a great link, thanks for sharing statistics!

Edit: No I take it back, my field is looking pretty snazzy in terms of employment! Even if pay sucks...

Edited September 14, 2012 by Usmivka