Opportunity Cost for doing a PhD?

[applefangirl]

Hi,

 

I am currently in a Master's program in Statistics at a top school and I am doing pretty well. I am still considering my options for potential career paths (currently my main interests are clinical trials, epidemiology or data science in health care) , but I know that I would like to eventually go into industry. 

However, given my academic performance, my advisors are recommending that I continue with a PhD. 

 

I am wondering if I am interested in going into industry, how important is a PhD? Also there is a huge opportunity cost of doing PhD such as reduced income, settling into a career later, and potentially waiting to start a family, etc. So would it be worth it career-wise to do the PhD?

 

Please feel free to share any opinions you may have.

Thanks!

[Quantum Buckyball]

No if the field you're in is already saturated with PhDs. If your end-goal is go into industry, do you see many PhDs ended up in the industry, is there a demand for it? Not all fields are created equal, for example, industry prefer to hire people with a Masters in Computer Science instead of a PhD because the field is evolving so rapidly.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Quantum Buckyball

[StatsG0d]

I would take a less pessimistic view than that provided above. I don't think that the job market for statistics PhDs is really all that saturated. If anything, there's a shortage (with the big data explosion and what have you). Yes--there is a large opportunity cost. But this cost diminishes depending on where you will be. For example, I calculated that living in one rural college town, adjusted for cost of living, I would only be taking a $7,000/year pay cut. It's not insignificant, but it's not massive either.

 

I think it also depends heavily on your goals. Do you want to do research? Then get a PhD. Do you want to sit at a computer and run regressions all day? Then it's probably not necessary.

[Severina]

What I've seen in the biotech/pharma world is that both masters and PhD biostatisticians are very employable.  The masters people tend to be the worker bees who eventually rise to level of say manager.  But those who rise to be department head or director level very often have PhDs.  I don't see a saturated job market for either.  In fact jobs for talented, experienced biostatisticians often go begging. 

 

The PhD degree by itself gurantees nothing.  The main advantage to having a PhD is that you won't ever be held back or passed over for the big promotion for not having one.  So I say if you want a PhD and you can financially afford to stay in school for another 2-3 years, go for it.  The opportunity costs to your career in the short run are moderate and potential pay-off in the long run is significant. 

 

 

 

(Disclaimer: the above assessment is for Biostats.  I am less familiar with the situation for straight Statitistics grads in a non-biotech labor market.) 

Edited February 11, 2015 by Severina

[kgbfan]

What I've seen in the biotech/pharma world is that both masters and PhD biostatisticians are very employable.  The masters people tend to be the worker bees who eventually rise to level of say manager.  But those who rise to be department head or director level very often have PhDs.  I don't see a saturated job market for either.  In fact jobs for talented, experienced biostatisticians often go begging. 

 

The PhD degree by itself gurantees nothing.  The main advantage to having a PhD is that you won't ever be held back or passed over for the big promotion for not having one.  So I say if you want a PhD and you can financially afford to stay in school for another 2-3 years, go for it.  The opportunity costs to your career in the short run are moderate and potential pay-off in the long run is significant. 

 

 

 

(Disclaimer: the above assessment is for Biostats.  I am less familiar with the situation for straight Statitistics grads in a non-biotech labor market.) 

 

 

 

This post is pretty spot on.  One thing I might add is that based on my experience in biotech, it's the PhD level statisticians who get assigned to the more interesting and challenging tasks , whereas the Masters level statisticians tend to do the majority of the  "grunt work."  I personally found myself getting bored doing the "grunt work," which is why I decided to apply for a PhD.  Looking back I probably should have went for the PhD outright and saved myself the time and money.  While in the program, if you decide it's not for you, you could always leave with a Masters.  Just my two cents.

Edited February 11, 2015 by kgbfan

[StatsML15]

When I made decisions about what schools to apply to, I talked to several current students and graduates of multiple programs. Whenever I brought up concerns about the job market, they all pretty much laughed and said if you have a stats PhD you will be just fine. I wouldn't worry too much about market saturation.

 

If you are absolutely convinced you want to do industry, I would recommend working for a while. You should also be just fine getting a job with a masters and you will get an opportunity to see if you are satisfied with the career opportunities you will have with a masters. I think the biggest difference is if are you interested in research or applied work. Jobs you get with a masters will likely be less theoretical and more in the line of data mining than statistics. Also, I would imagine if you eventually want a leadership role, a PhD would be a good idea.