There's an interesting commentary in the latest issue of Nature. Apparently the UK goverment has plans to train 2,000 new PhDs in physics and engineering.
The UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) is set to spend £250 million on creating 44 centres to train 2,000 PhD students over the next 5 years.Here at the University of Toronto we've been having a discussion about increasing the number of graduate students. The goal of the university is to increase the number of graduate students by 30% over the next few years. The objective is supposed to be achieved by providing extra money to fund graduate students.
The interdisciplinary Centres For Doctoral Training will focus on areas including climate change, sustainable energy, healthcare technologies and nanotechnology. All of the new centres will be spread across 22 UK universities, and 17 will also have strong ties with businesses.
Businesses will also contribute some cash, EPSRC says, but how much is not clear.
The new centres will accept their first batch of students in October 2009. The students will have four years of funding for their PhDs — more than the roughly three years that most PhDs receive — and will spend up to 75% of their time training with the industrial partners.
Science departments here have cautioned the university not to expect much of a change. By and large, the number of graduate students we accept is not limited by funding. We are making offers of acceptance to every qualified student who applies and we still have excess capacity. More money isn't going to help because it's the qualified students who are limiting, not the ability to fund them.
Is the situation different in the UK? Are physics and engineering departments turning away good students because they don't have the money? Wouldn't that have to be the case is this plan is going to work?
24 comments :
Are there even 30% more positions in phys/eng that need filling?
NSF made a similar decision several years ago with regard to taxonomists, training hundreds of grad students under the PEET program. Sadly, no one correspondingly increased the number of permanent taxonomy positions. Now there are an awful lot of young taxonomists looking for work.
Things might change in a hurry. The Depression didn't really start until people had spent the money they had in their pockets when the Market fell. Our society is rapidly spending the last bit of money in our pockets to get through "one last nice Christmas" before the wave hits. I think once the new reality arrives there will be a lot of young adults looking for options to employment and university and graduate school often is an acceptable place to ride out tough times. If the government is going to spend it's way out of recession then perhaps the money will come with the students.
What's the logic in all of these 'increase the number of grad students proposals'? Most grads can't find jobs, and most labs (that I know of) couldn't afford to take on more students even if their salaries were subsidized (obviously there's a significant cost to doing science as well). Do we really even need more Ph.D.s?
In biology, at least, more Ph.D.s would help provide a bigger pool of lab workers, but then even more of them would have no positions available by the time they complete their postdoc. The ol' bottleneck. We need a public that is more supportive of science, not more scientists.
Degree inflation continues.... A PhD used to be something quite rare.
it's the qualified students who are limiting, not the ability to fund them.
I'd be interested to hear what qualifies one to be a graduate student. I'm trying to think if I possessed any characteristics that have been a help in research. Endurance? Naivity?
I'd be interested to hear what qualifies one to be a graduate student. I'm trying to think if I possessed any characteristics that have been a help in research. Endurance? Naivity?
Intelligence and some background knowledge, for two.
How many graduate students does UofT recruit from countries other than the USA and Canada?
Jeebus, not this discussion again!
Stop making Ph.D.s unless you're prepared to start making jobs for them. It's very simple.
NSF made a similar decision several years ago with regard to taxonomists, training hundreds of grad students under the PEET program. Sadly, no one correspondingly increased the number of permanent taxonomy positions. Now there are an awful lot of young taxonomists looking for work.
Sadly, this is a common theme. Totally irresponsible on the part of the people doing the training.
Bayman asks,
I'd be interested to hear what qualifies one to be a graduate student. I'm trying to think if I possessed any characteristics that have been a help in research. Endurance? Naivity?
1. You have to demonstrate that you can get decent grades undergraduate courses. Generally this means As and Bs in your last two years.
2. You have to have taken the right kinds of courses. Take Biochemistry courses if you are applying to a Biochemistry Department. Your economics courses don't count. Take upper level courses (4th) rather that 3rd year courses (or lower).
3. Demonstrate motivation to do science. This can be expressed in your covering letter or during an interview.
4. Have lab experience during summer jobs and a 4th year research project. You must be able to show that you can do the work required of a graduate student.
5. Have good letters of reference. Be prepared to supply letters from three scientists who can attest to points 1-4 above. They must be willing to strongly support your application to graduate school.
crf asks,
How many graduate students does UofT recruit from countries other than the USA and Canada?
Less than 10% in our department.
Stop making Ph.D.s unless you're prepared to start making jobs for them. It's very simple.
My guess is there's a lot more demand/jobs for science PhDs in other fields (law, medicine, business) than there is in science.
My guess is there's a lot more demand/jobs for science PhDs in other fields (law, medicine, business) than there is in science.
Sure are, once you've done the PhD as well as the subsequent LLB/JD, MD, or MBA.
The problem is, there aren't even enough jobs for those of us who want to be academic researchers. The rate at which these schools are churning out Ph.D.s even exceeds this metric. The post-doc "glut" is ample evidence of that.
The issue is, as I've gone on about before here and elsewhere, that there is a conflict of interest. Universities are training people for jobs in a field that the universities, themselves, are hiring for. Yes, there are other options for PhD graduates, but the very least we can ask of a university department is be responsible for maintaining some degree of concordance between graduation rates and hiring rates. I'm not at all suggesting 1:1; just something that makes the universities in some way responsible for the people they train.
Mike says,
Universities are training people for jobs in a field that the universities, themselves, are hiring for. Yes, there are other options for PhD graduates, but the very least we can ask of a university department is be responsible for maintaining some degree of concordance between graduation rates and hiring rates. I'm not at all suggesting 1:1; just something that makes the universities in some way responsible for the people they train.
I reject the principle that we have to take into account the number of potential jobs that might be available in universities ten years from now.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that we should do this. What is the proper ratio? You keep talking about it but you never give us a number.
In our department about half the students who enter a PhD program go on to do a post-doc. The remainder usually decide to do something else. Some of them try and fail to get a post-doc,
Of the ones who complete several years of post-doctoral studies, about 25% get a job in an academic environment.
Is this about the right ratio?
When Mike says 'jobs for PhDs' I think he means 'academic jobs for PhDs'.
This is silly because there are plenty of science jobs for science PhDs outside academia (although taking these jobs means putting up with higher pay, a shorter working week and more time spent doing actual science - it's a tradeoff!).
A university professor only needs to train one PhD during her entire career to replace herself when she retires; I would guess that most train at least a dozen or so. That's why it's silly for graduate students to expect that getting their PhD will mean they can walk into an academic job.
Larry said,
I reject the principle that we have to take into account the number of potential jobs that might be available in universities ten years from now.
I'm not talking about ten years from now; I'm talking about matching current hiring rates to current rates of acceptance into PhD programs (or, if you prefer, graduation rates).
What is the proper ratio? You keep talking about it but you never give us a number.
I've speculated that 1:10 might be about right, but that's just a guess.
In order to get something close to an appropriate number, we'd have to figure in a number of things, some of which you've mentioned.
For instance, how many new PhDs want to be academic scientists? Of those that do not want to be academic scientists, how many do not because the rate of hire is so low (I can tell you from experience that this is not a trivial number)?
I don't think it would be that hard to set up a system whereby the following things happen:
1. Undergraduate students are made aware of the realities of graduate training and the prospects for long-term, stable employment as an independent academic scientist
2. Graduate schools and departments are required to take some responsibility for not over-training; i.e. not flooding the market with PhDs.
Of the ones who complete several years of post-doctoral studies, about 25% get a job in an academic environment.
Is this about the right ratio?
There's no way of knowing without first assessing how many wanted a job. Also, what is meant by "several years" of post-doctoral studies? 3 years? 5 years? 7 years?
To me, a 5 year PDF is the absolute maximum; beyond that, you no longer qualify for external funding from most large agencies, and people begin to ask why you haven't gotten a job yet. Even 5 years is really pushing it.
So if I had to guess, I would say that departments should be creating at least one tenure-track, faculty position for every 8-10 students graduating with a PhD. I would be shocked if the current rates are anywhere near this.
When Mike says 'jobs for PhDs' I think he means 'academic jobs for PhDs'.
Yes, that's what I mean.
This is silly because there are plenty of science jobs for science PhDs outside academia
I'm only talking about jobs inside academia. I'm not for a minute suggesting that universities should consider the job market for science writers, industry scientists, patent agents, etc when making acceptances into PhD programs.
But universities must, in some way, be responsible for their own hiring practices.
A university professor only needs to train one PhD during her entire career to replace herself when she retires; I would guess that most train at least a dozen or so.
True, but this is misleading. I'm not talking about replacing a professor. I'm talking about new hires. A single professor needs to train one person to replace him or herself. Obviously, most (Einstein excluded) train far more than this.
But the question is: how is the university department responding to the professor training more people than this?
That's why it's silly for graduate students to expect that getting their PhD will mean they can walk into an academic job.
No one ever said they should. I'm all for healthy competition, and I'm not suggesting there should be a job for every Ph.D. I'm merely suggesting that there be some degree of accountability by the universities for the people they recruit so vigorously and train so many of.
Mike says,
So if I had to guess, I would say that departments should be creating at least one tenure-track, faculty position for every 8-10 students graduating with a PhD. I would be shocked if the current rates are anywhere near this.
I anticipate that my department will hire two tenure-stream faculty in the next five years. During that time we will graduate about 50 students with PhDs.
Of those 50 students about half (25) will be able and willing to compete for academic positions and five of them will be successful. Chances are high that none of our former graduates them will be hired by our department.
In light of that data, what do you think our department should do next year when we look at the pool of applicants to graduate school?
(We normally accept about 25 students per year and half of them get a PhD.)
Larry said,
I anticipate that my department will hire two tenure-stream faculty in the next five years. During that time we will graduate about 50 students with PhDs.
So a hiring rate of about 1:25 tenure-stream positions to PhD graduates.
Of those 50 students about half (25) will be able and willing to compete for academic positions and five of them will be successful.
Let's assume that the 25 who did not want to become PIs felt this way solely because they don't want to be academic PIs, and not because they feel they have no chance of ever getting there because of the saturation of the market (not true, but let's assume).
With this in mind, we're looking at 1 tenure track position for every 12.5 PhD graduates who want to be academic PIs. A better ratio than I would have thought, but still pretty dismal. I would wager that nearly 100% of M.D. or L.L.B/J.D. graduates who want to be physicians or lawyers can do so; even in law, which is becoming a bit saturated, I'd wager it's fairly close to 80-90% (I'd love to see some data to the contrary).
So UofT Biochem creates 1 job for every 12.5 Ph.D students it graduates that would, assuming all other things are equal (which I don't think they), want to work as academic PIs.
BUT...
and five of them will be successful.
Ouch! So of the original 25 Ph.D. graduates that wanted to be PIs, 5 will be successful. That's really not the fault of UofT Biochem, since, as you say, you don't hire back many of your own graduates. That means a UofT Biochem Ph.D. graduate who wants to be a PI has, again all things being equal, a 1/5 chance. Or put another way, 4/5 of your Ph.D. graduates will fail to find work in their chosen profession.
This, of course, does not take into account how long these 5 have to train as post-docs before they get the 5 jobs. Another factor to consider...
In light of that data, what do you think our department should do next year when we look at the pool of applicants to graduate school?
Accept fewer students. Don't contribute to the surplus. Yes, your PIs need bodies, but the majority of those bodies should be technicians, not trainees.
You could also hire more professors, but that's unlikely. So the solution is this: if times are tough and you can only afford 2 new tenure-track professors in the next 5 years, then you can only afford a max of ~40 graduate students in that time (which would produce 20 Ph.D. graduates, 10 of whom would want to be PIs, 2 of whom would get jobs).
I'd prefer if the actual number were closer to 25-30, because many of those who don't "want" to be academic PIs feel this way because of the over-supply, but I could live with 35-40.
^
Strangely, I'm applying for grad school at U of T even given what you say.
Mike says,
With this in mind, we're looking at 1 tenure track position for every 12.5 PhD graduates who want to be academic PIs. A better ratio than I would have thought, but still pretty dismal. I would wager that nearly 100% of M.D. or L.L.B/J.D. graduates who want to be physicians or lawyers can do so; even in law, which is becoming a bit saturated, I'd wager it's fairly close to 80-90% (I'd love to see some data to the contrary).
We disagree at a fundamental level. I come from a generation that sees a Doctor of Philosphy (PhD) in Biochemistry in the same light as a PhD in Philosophy, English, Sociology, or Music. The experience and pleasure of getting the degree is its own reward.
Law school and medical school are job training programs. They are completely different from the intellectual activity and creativeness required in a PhD program.
We can't resolve our differences as long as you continue to think of a science PhD program in terms of job training.
Larry said,
We disagree at a fundamental level. I come from a generation that sees a Doctor of Philosphy (PhD) in Biochemistry in the same light as a PhD in Philosophy, English, Sociology, or Music. The experience and pleasure of getting the degree is its own reward.
I don't think we're that far apart. You will never meet anyone who believes, more than I do, in science for the sake of science; learning for learning's sake. I wholeheartedly support the notion that a Ph.D. is its own reward.
That said, I have to eat. With all due respect, Larry, it's very easy to believe in the intrinsic value of the Ph.D. when one is firmly entrenched (and deservedly so, I should add) in a tenured position.
Law school and medical school are job training programs. They are completely different from the intellectual activity and creativeness required in a PhD program.
100% agree. They are completely different beasts, and I could never do anything except be a researcher. The intellectual challenges associated with day-to-day life as a researcher cannot be had elsewhere. I've tried.
We can't resolve our differences as long as you continue to think of a science PhD program in terms of job training.
All I am asking is that universities acknowledge that there is a problem; that the enormous glut of post-docs, particularly those who have been post-docs for >5 years, is untenable in the long-term. I'm asking that some accountability be taken by the universities in order to rectify a situation in which, by your own admission, 4/5ths of the people who want to work in a given profession cannot do so; not because they are not qualified, but because there are simply not enough jobs to go around.
We can fix this problem, but to do so will first require an admission, by the universities, that the problem exists.
Again, I'm fully supportive of science for the sake of science and of the notion that a Ph.D. is not job training. But that does not change the fact that a Ph.D. is a requirement to hold an academic position.
The universities create the Ph.D.s AND hire the Ph.D.s; a classic conflict of interest. Yet in every discussion I've ever had with people at universities, they simply refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem. All those cheap, highly skilled post-docs must be clouding their vision...
"By and large, the number of graduate students we accept is not limited by funding. We are making offers of acceptance to every qualified student who applies and we still have excess capacity. More money isn't going to help because it's the qualified students who are limiting, not the ability to fund them."
Perhaps it is becoming difficult to find qualified students because those that are qualified have discovered that there are very few positions that one could directly transition to once obtaining their PhD or finishing their postdoc. Therefor they prefer to apply to and enroll in "job-training programs" such as law school and med school which have better job prospects.
I have a little bit of experience in science as well, having done my undergraduate training in Canada, and obtaining a PhD and some postdoctoral training in the USA. I would argue what most PIs want are experienced researchers to work in their labs. However, because experienced technicians cost more than graduate students and postdocs to employ, they argue that they need more grad students and postdocs.
Post a Comment