[gilesc]

To be fair, there are also private research foundations and private sector companies -- i.e., drug or medical device companies that also hire biologists. You can also pivot somewhat easily into public health and work for e.g., the Department of Health. And if all else fails, teach high school or lower biology.

[jerf]

"And if all else fails, teach high school or lower biology."

With yet more years in education to get your teacher certificate, while your student debt accrues interest and grows, and which you will have to pay down in a career whose income potential has quite likely already peaked and is quite likely headed down over the next 20 years while you are competing for salary against people who don't need to pay down anywhere near as much debt and with additional qualifications that the schools don't care about at all.

[gilesc]

In the US, PhD students in biology are paid tuition plus salary. So assuming his undergraduate student loans were subsidized, a PhD who decided to teach high school would not be in a much different financial position than a recently graduated Science B.Ed.

Not to mention that there are magnet high schools that do very much like the perceived prestige of having PhD level instructors. Your typical public high school wouldn't care, of course.

[jtbigwoo]

Not to mention that there are magnet high schools that do very much like the perceived prestige of having PhD level instructors. Your typical public high school wouldn't care, of course.

That's not true everywhere. Where I live, there's nearly unlimited public school choice and school districts must reimburse each other at a state-mandated rate for transferred students. Especially in poorer districts, this rate is generally higher than the per-student funding the schools receive for in-district students. (I've heard it's up to $1500/year more.) Individual schools that can recruit students by offering specialized programs (languages, music, science, etc.) can increase their funding quite a bit.

[apl]

This simply shows that the US university system is horribly broken with regard to finances and debt. Wouldn't happen in the EU, for instance.

[yummyfajitas]

Not really, it simply shows that in the EU, your bad education choices harm everyone. In the US, the only person they harm is you.

[shadowfox]

This probably needs explanation

[apl]

I assume the rationale is that it's the student's fault if he chooses a major (e.g., sociology) that doesn't cover interest afterwards.

Well, if you say so? Of course, it grossly oversimplifies reality. Job markets are complex; lack of success cannot always be traced back to bad choices. Also, you could level a very similar objection against health insurance. Personally, I'm not comfortable with that kind of senseless cut-throat capitalism.

[yummyfajitas]

In the EU, I assume the OP was alluding to the fact that everyone else is forced to pay (most of) your college costs. Therefore, you owe very little debt upon graduation. Private gains, socialized losses.