Preparing for jobs outside academia

[Grimnir]

What is the job market like for social science PhDs outside academia? What skills should you acquire during PhD to be competitive for this job market if the ever dwindling tenure positions end up being out of your reach?

[gellert]

Good teaching skills to teach at the high school level.  Programming skills.  Any kind of knowledge of marketing or I/O stuff.  Any kind of experience with government or policy.  That's all I can come up with right now.

[EastCoasting]

Statistics, statistics, and more statistics, and some programing in R and Python.

[TheMercySeat]

I'm a private sector MA.

Our PhDs are big quant/IO people, so I concur with EastCoasting. Many of them interned with my company prior to employment.

One young PhD recently remarked that he wished he learned more grant writing in school. While he still got hired, he implied it would help him grow faster in the company.

Edited January 10, 2015 by TheMercySeat

[spunky]

Statistics, statistics, and more statistics, and some programing in R and Python.

 

i think this cannot be highlighted enough. the emphasis of psychology on data analysis is probably one of the strongest assets that we have over many other social sciences. there is more data to be analyzed out there in the world than people who are capable of doing it and, for better or worse, i think the best/more interesting positions are available for people who've gone beyond the basic SPSS stuff and can handle some programming in R/SAS/STATA and some database management like SQL.

 

within my program, for instance, all graduates who were willing to look for positions outside academia were snatched by companies even before they finished their PhDs (actually, 2 didn't even make it past the university door because the university offered them a job  ). a good example i know is a friend of mine who jumped the ladder all the way up to research director straight out of graduate school because of her good technical skills in manipulating and making sense of data.

 

i honestly feel that if more senior undergrads or early-year MA students in the social sciences knew the importance of data analysis in today's world (and the absolute dire situation of the job market both inside and outside academia) then everybody would aim for getting a strong quantitative training. the difference in terms of starting salaries, job opportunities, etc. for those with advanced quantiative training VS little-to-none quantitative training is papable, to say the least. 

Edited January 10, 2015 by spunky

[Grimnir]

Any specific courses anyone recommends taking? Which programming language is in the highest demand in industry?

[spunky]

it depends. in my opinion, if you gravitate towards something like gov't contracts or the FDA, SAS is the way to go. SAS has pretty much a monopoly in clinical trials and research.

 

but if you're gonna do big data analytics, market research and, in general, more of the "cool/hip" stuff, i'd say R and some database management program. python is also very good to know. 

 

i do all my private consulting in R both for students, profs and private clients and haven't had any problems. that's what's paying my bills right now because my funding/stipend is just too low....

[VulpesZerda]

Is doing a quant concentration enough? Stats and quant do scare me a bit, but knowing the importance of these skills, I've expressed interest in completing quantitative concentrations in any potential programs that offer them.

[AAdAAm]

I am not in graduate school (yet) and I remember I lamented a few months ago in this board about the lack of job opportunities for people in the social sciences, especially in academia. Well, I did my homework, spent time emailing programs and actually talking to a few students who were either in graduate school or had graduated shortly after that and I have to say that has changed my focus a lot in terms of planning for a career.

 

The people in this board and outside of it are right: there are very, very few jobs left in academia that are worthwhile. Tenure-track positions have given way to adjunct professors and dwindling funding opportunities makes the competition all much more extreme. There  *are* jobs outside academia, many of which are interesting and rewarding but what the “real world” pays for is not your knowledge of cutting-edge psychological theories but your ability to do research and make sense of data. I am not the best when it comes to math or stats but I do see that there are many “applied statistics” programs in Departments of Psychology and Education that I would not mind applying to if I know at least I’m gonna have a fighting chance of getting paid enough to survive on something better than ramen noodles and free pizza. If the world places emphasis on technical skills and data analysis then so be it. I refuse to become another statistic  in some un- or underemployment report where my PhD in Psychology only gets me to the point where I need to suffer through another +10 yrs of ‘almost-poverty’ before I can join whatever is left of the middle class. I’m aware that nobody gets into graduate school to become rich but… a decent (small) home and a living wage? Going out to a restaurant every once in a while? Is this too much to ask in today’s world?

[FinallyAccepted]

Is doing a quant concentration enough? Stats and quant do scare me a bit, but knowing the importance of these skills, I've expressed interest in completing quantitative concentrations in any potential programs that offer them.

Me too. Where it was offered, I expressed interest in the quantitative minor available at the schools I applied to. For this reason. It intimidates me, but I think it makes one more marketable.

[psych face]

This is random thought I am having right now, thinking about students I have known...

 

I feel like I must be lucky when I see how things are for some people. My professors keep offering me jobs, so I haven't had to look for anything. Every once in a while I meet someone who has formed zero relationships with their professors and acts like they're being totally victimized by the system because they can't get a foot in the door. And I'm like, 'dude, you gotta get over that independent loner thing or you aren't getting anywere.' Not that everyone who can't get a job is lacking in connections or anything, I know it's hard sometimes, but the benefits of connections are amazing. And it surprises me how some people I've met feel sort of entitled to a good job while simultaneously holding their professors and anyone on good terms with them in contempt. Really, why would they want to work with you? You can't even talk to people. What is so special about you? Does the answer to that question exist only in your mind? Do you treat your professors with respect or are you just faking it and think they're too stupid to notice? What is it that justifies that belief? Your meager education in comparison to theirs makes you better because _? If you can't talk to your teachers, how are you going to succeed in the profession you feel entitled to?

 

-this was directed at people I've known who are probably not here on this board, but, seriously, I treat my professors like my friends and *shocker* they do the same in return... because they are HU*MANs -whatever that means, this funny word about HU and MANs. Treating people like HU-MANs is surprisingly helpful in life. That would be my advice in order to avoid needing to look for a job in future.

[FinallyAccepted]

Yeah, people skills would have to be helpful regardless of what you do after earning a PhD.  Speaking to individuals and speaking to groups, too.

[spunky]

Is doing a quant concentration enough? 

 

 

Me too. Where it was offered, I expressed interest in the quantitative minor available at the schools I applied to. For this reason. It intimidates me, but I think it makes one more marketable.

 

will it be enough? to be honest, i don't know. but there is one thing i can tell you for sure: it definitely would not hurt. 

 

as someone who lives and dies by data and finds it fun to hang around in webpages like the U.S. Census Bureau or the OCED's Economic Report the one thing i can say is that, setting aside anyone's immediate experience (including mine), times are tough when it comes to getting a job. when i was researching unemployment and underemployment for post-graduate degree holders during the summer (so basically asking the question whether the ROI, Return On Investment, was worthwhile for MA/PhDs) i kept a separate analysis for Psychology because of the weird claims i found on websites like these: http://www.csbsju.edu/psychology/student-resources/doctorate, http://persistentastonishment.blogspot.ca/2011/05/six-graphs-answer-questions-about-phd.html)where the claim about unemployment at the PhD level for Psychology was at 1% or better than for other scientists. 

 

the thing is that when you look at the original source of the data, the story is a tad bit more interesting. most people cite the National Science Foundation (NSF, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctoratework/#tabs-1)survey of doctorate recepients to monitor more or less how PhD's are doing across the board in the U.S. (i wish we had something like that in Canada). now, if you just look at the most recent numbers from 2013 (the pre-eliminary results were just released last Septmeber) it says, just as described, that unemployment for PhDs in Psychology is at 1.4%. but just look at how they define "unemployment" in the very, very tiny footnote of the survey:

 

"Unemployed includes individuals who were not working during the survey reference week but had been seeking work in the prior 4 weeks or who were on layoff from their job"

 

"seeking work in the prior 4 weeks or laid off"? that doesn't tell us anything about the people after the 4-week period or who haven't been able to land a job after their PhD completion. but there is a much more informative (and, at least to me, somewhat alarming) statistic which is the percentage of PhDs in psychology who are employed full-time: 64.47% so, sure, the majority of PhDs are still employed full-time... but that's what? a 14% better chance than the flip of a (fair) coin?  

 

ideally, it would be great to have more up-to-date statistics where they break it down by areas of Psychology, because i suspect a lot of the employment numbers could be driven by people in Clinical, Counselling and other Health Services areas whereas people in primarily research-oriented programs (Social, Personality, Cognitive, Neuro/Biopsych, etc.) who would ideally jump into tenure-track positions could be having a tougher time landing a job (but this is a hypothesis of mine. no data to back that up). another thing you can see (but you'll have to look through the data of the previous years) is that the participation of PhDs in the private sector has increased (albeit very slowly) over the years and enrollment in post-docs has sky-rocketed. so the interesting question here is how many people are being driven to pursue a post-doc out of need rather than actual interest. although the demands of the job-market for tenure-track positions (whatever few are left of them) are probably making the post-doc a necessity.

 

the best i was able to do was look through the Center for Workforce Studies for the APA (http://www.apa.org/workforce/index.aspx) that surveys PhDs in Psych per area in terms of employment, type of positions they get, starting salaries, etc. unfortunately, the most up-to-date survey on doctorate employment that they have available is from 2009, although the trends they report mimic the ones from the NSF survey quite a bit. they report 63% full-time employment for Psych PhDs with the caveat that full-time employment numbers have been decreasing since the 1980s. they do present a break-down of employability per-area but i'm not sure how i feel about their numbers. like they say "only 25% of clinical neuropsychology doctorates were employed full time at the time of the study" but only 9 people self-identified themselves as clinical neuropsychologists. you see 100% employment in Sports Psychology, but there was only 1 respondent. i guess we'll have to wait until their next survey results are published to see how much things have changed during these last 4 years.

 

now, if you turn around and look at the skills being required by private industries right now, you can see a lot of published research and news articles that lament the low numbers of college graduates in STEM areas and how technical knowledge is the primary skill employers are looking for. the technical knowledge that most Psychologists develop (to a certain extent) is research design and data analysis. i think it is a worthwhile investment of anyone's time to learn how to do this because you never know what's gonna happen in the future. better be ready for it

[Applemiu]

Me too. Where it was offered, I expressed interest in the quantitative minor available at the schools I applied to. For this reason. It intimidates me, but I think it makes one more marketable.

 

I believe that statistics (or computer science) is the answer. Don't be intimidated though. It is just that stats takes time. It is a great subject (I love it), but because of the way it has been developed historically, it is not intuitive. At all. You need to hang on in there for a while, then one day suddenly you'll see the beauty of it. 

[gellert]

I believe that statistics (or computer science) is the answer. Don't be intimidated though. It is just that stats takes time. It is a great subject (I love it), but because of the way it has been developed historically, it is not intuitive. At all. You need to hang on in there for a while, then one day suddenly you'll see the beauty of it. 

 

And code academy is a great way to start learning some simple code, too.  What's nice about programming is that many programming jobs don't require demonstrable education in software engineering.  As long as you are able to actually perform the tasks, and do so efficiently, that's what's important.  

[isilya]

This is random thought I am having right now, thinking about students I have known...

 

I feel like I must be lucky when I see how things are for some people. My professors keep offering me jobs, so I haven't had to look for anything. Every once in a while I meet someone who has formed zero relationships with their professors and acts like they're being totally victimized by the system because they can't get a foot in the door. And I'm like, 'dude, you gotta get over that independent loner thing or you aren't getting anywere.' Not that everyone who can't get a job is lacking in connections or anything, I know it's hard sometimes, but the benefits of connections are amazing. And it surprises me how some people I've met feel sort of entitled to a good job while simultaneously holding their professors and anyone on good terms with them in contempt. Really, why would they want to work with you? You can't even talk to people. What is so special about you? Does the answer to that question exist only in your mind? Do you treat your professors with respect or are you just faking it and think they're too stupid to notice? What is it that justifies that belief? Your meager education in comparison to theirs makes you better because _? If you can't talk to your teachers, how are you going to succeed in the profession you feel entitled to?

 

-this was directed at people I've known who are probably not here on this board, but, seriously, I treat my professors like my friends and *shocker* they do the same in return... because they are HU*MANs -whatever that means, this funny word about HU and MANs. Treating people like HU-MANs is surprisingly helpful in life. That would be my advice in order to avoid needing to look for a job in future.

Totally agreed! I had been volunteering in a lab for a year, working hard on my own independent project and being accessible/generally friendly. At the end of a meeting a few months ago, my advisor just suddenly was like "Oh yeah, I'm going to pay you this year so you should go fill out HR paperwork." It was awesome! Opportunities like that have come up from other people as well -- making connections and maintaining them pays off.