[throwawayjava]

> Every graduate that doesn't find a high paying job in the field is an excellent candidate for the next level of education.

1. You really think Berkeley's top-ranked PhD program is recruiting people who couldn't find jobs? No. Not only can 100% of successful top-tier PhD applicants find jobs, 100% of them are strong candidates for the top echelon on entry-level jobs.

If you disagree, go look up the people in Berkeley's CS PhD program. Point out a single person you think didn't turn down mid-100s job offers to attend Berkeley.

Getting into one of these top-5-to-10 PhD programs is no small thing...

2. MOOCs aren't PhD programs and in nearly all cases aren't designed to feed into PhD programs.

3. Finally, at least in CS, at least for the moment, educators are in extremely high demand. And again, at least for CS, that demand isn't being manufactured by the academy.

[gaius]

You really think Berkeley's top-ranked PhD program is recruiting people who couldn't find jobs?

It is well known that PhD programmes churn out far more PhDs than can reasonably be employed in their field.

I mean, including friends and former colleagues I probably know maybe 300 people with PhDs. Of those I can count on my fingers those actually doing research in academia, probably one hand those on tenure track. But do you really think any of them slogged through the programme in Physics or Biology just to get a software job writing CRUD apps, or prettying up BI reports?

[learc83]

You're arguing against a point that the OP didn't make.

[throwawayjava]

See point 3. At least in CS, at least for the moment, there's insane demand for CS educators. Maybe not research track at top 20 R1, but definitely requires a PhD.

[tomrod]

Close to 100%, but not 100%.

[throwawayjava]

This is sort of technically true. Modified statement, based on extensive person experience: ~80+% had such an offer in hand, and the remaining 20% either:

a) didn't bother applying but would've been shoe-ins, or else

b) knew very early (freshman year) they were research-bound and optimized for a non-industry objective function (but could've skated into an industry job of their choice given a shift in undergraduate career focus). E.g., couldn't pass a coding interview and no industry internships but have one or more top-tier publication in a hot subfield.

But (b) is kind of stupid to think about. It's like saying a successful lawyer would not make captain in the military. This may or may not be the case, but either way, who cares?

[olympus]

Lawyers can commission directly as captains in the USAF (and probably other branches) as long as they are not too old and can pass the fitness test. I think they also have to have passed a bar exam in one state, but it doesn't matter which one. They can get up to $65k of student loans repaid and don't even have to go through the same basic training as everyone else.

So (b) is slightly less trivial than saying a successful lawyer would not make captain in the military because most lawyers are one conversation, a few signatures, and one oath away from being a captain.

So don't delay lawyers, join today!

[fapjacks]

Did you actually do any recruiting? Or are you like me and just sort of started inadvertently talking this way after a certain number of years?

[olympus]

No recruiting, I started off by wanting to point out that military lawyers don't "make" captain, they are given that rank to start. Then I realized it sounded like a little like a recruitment talk so I decided to go all in.

[throwawayjava]

Yes, I know, that was my point.

> ...So (b) is slightly less trivial

I'd argue not. In both cases, a fully capable and prepared person has to jump through a couple of relatively trivial hoops. And when those hoops aren't possible to jump through it's a weird case. We can split that hair, but it's silly.

[telchar]

You chose a funny example. A lawyer can make captain in the military just by signing on the dotted line, same with a doctor.