[shou4577]

From the article: "Imagine bright young things entering a new kind of science PhD, in which both they and their supervisors embrace from the start the idea that graduates will go on to an array of demanding careers — government, business, non-profit and education — and work towards that goal (see page 381). The students meet supervisors from a range of disciplines; they acquire management, communication, leadership and other transferable skills alongside traditional academic development of critical thinking and analysis; and they spend six months to a year abroad."

This sounds a lot like my undergrad degree, and not at all what I expect from a PhD.

In my opinion, people get bachelors degrees in order to get a job. It used to be that was what trade school was for, but now it seems that you need a degree just to qualify for an interview in a lot of fields. In my opinion, though, you get a PhD because you are interested in the subject - not because you need it for a job.

I think PhDs are an end in themselves, not a means to an end. Please don't water down my PhD by forcing me to do cross-discipline studies that do not interest me, or by teaching me management skills - I'm not in business school.

Now, a smart PhD student would realize that they might be getting a job in the industry, and they might not be able to get the job that they are hoping for, and plan accordingly. For example, while I hope to get a job at a research institution when I graduate, I realize that it is possible that I may not, so I take extra-curricular courses and seminars to prepare me for other jobs. But I do this because I choose to, not because some people somewhere else think that I might not get the job they think that I want.

Frankly, it may be rude, but if there are more PhDs than job openings, that's a good thing. It creates a lot of competition. It keeps mediocre people (or at least it helps to) out of these critical positions. It prevents people (or at least helps to) from trying to get a PhD solely for the purpose of getting a job, which cheapens the degree all around.

So long as PhD students are aware of their future prospects (and I don't know any who aren't - this stuff is crammed down our throats), I think that this is fine. Entrepreneurs do this all the time. They know that starting a business is not guaranteed - indeed, they might go bankrupt. But they might hit it big. This isn't a problem, and we don't start government initiatives to help entrepreneurs who fail get a good job anyway. We don't make entrepreneurs take back-up courses in plumbing and construction, so that when some of them fail they have a fall-back job. They don't want that job anyway. If they did, they would prepare for it on their own, because they are smart people.

In science it is the same thing. The people who love science for science's sake - these are the people we want to be scientists. These are the people we can trust with tenure, because they would do research even if we didn't pay them at all. They are smart, and they know that they might not make it into their dream job, so they can prepare themselves for alternatives if they want. Or they can shoot for broke, spend years of their lives doing fantastic research and focusing on doing only the things they love (which, by coincidence, help the rest of the world). But forcing them to prepare for alternatives because some of them might benefit from it is just a turn-off.

[khandelwal]

"Please don't water down my PhD ... by teaching me management skills - I'm not in business school.""

Most faculty manage groups of 5 - 20 people (their lab), a budget (their startup and other research funds) and have to deal with all the problems of running a team of people with varied skills, interest and motivation. Some faculty go on to be department heads or directors of institutes. In all these cases, management skills would be useful. Sure, you're still doing research, but you'll spend a good chunk of your time managing the lab.

"These are the people we can trust with tenure, because they would do research even if we didn't pay them at all"

It's this attitude that keeps the postdoc (and in some cases the junior faculty) salaries so low. Just because you love what you do, you shouldn't have to raise a family on $40,000/year

[apl]

The higher you climb, the less hands-on research (including everything from planning to write-up to manual procedures) you do -- absolutely. It's staggering how much money is wasted in the process due to lack of management skills.

One solution would indeed be adding managerial skills to the PhD curriculum. However, most PhD will never reach such a "position of power." Hence, the more efficient way around this issue appears to be hiring of full-time lab managers.

The whole science-pyramid requires restructuring.

[shou4577]

Thanks for pointing this out. I agree with you that having managerial skills would be important to someone who manages people, and that many faculty in academia do need to manage people.

My point is not so much that nobody needs management skills, it's that not everybody needs management skills. Let me decide whether or not I will need those skills for myself. Perhaps I already have some management skills from an undergraduate education, or perhaps I simply have a natural talent for it. If I think that I need management skills, I will learn them - I have plenty of opportunities to take such courses or seminars, if I want. I'm an adult, you don't have to force me to do something because I might need it later, just tell me the facts and I will decide for myself.

But if I think that it would be a better use of my time to do something else, like collaborate with a researcher at another university on a new problem, let me decide that. I hope that whatever job I apply for decides whether or not to hire me based on my specific skill set.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: a PhD is not (or should not be) a certificate declaring you qualified for a job. Not for an academic job, nor an industry job, nor any other job. It is a certificate declaring that I am very knowledgeable in a specific subject, and that people better and wiser than me believe that I can do meaningful research in the future.

If I want to show people that I have other job skills, I must show them some other way. A PhD only verifies the above, it doesn't verify that I am a good teacher, a good manager, a good communicator, a friendly guy, or that I am in any other way competent. If a job wants skills that I don't have, they shouldn't hire me.

For your other point, I totally agree that this attitude keeps the salaries low. Unfortunately I don't know what should be done about it. Either we can lie, and pretend that we only enjoy our research to the extent that it pays the bills, and otherwise do not enjoy it, or we can actually try to stop enjoying our work. Either seems silly. You can't hide what you love, and if other people try to take advantage of the fact, well, so be it. In fact, I can understand the counter-argument: just because work is important, doesn't mean we should pay people more than the bare minimum they will accept. It's not fair, and it isn't right, but it is rather true.

[daoudc]

I think PhDs are an end in themselves, not a means to an end

I agree completely. I advise people to only do a PhD if they'll be doing what they love. It's the one chance you get to do exactly what you want, so make it good.

EDIT: one chance (apart from doing a startup).