Academia: Exponential Growth & Post Docs Till 40?

[deRham]

But why should your social position be based on how smart you are?

Not necessarily social position, so much as just restricted to this situation (tenure means they're confident you'll make a valuable addition to the research community and lead it). I don't think it should exclude factors other than your raw ability to produce good work - also how much you'll benefit the community (what kind of funding you'll draw, what kind of training you might give, how valuable you will be to your colleagues). So in fact, being a prodigy in your field might be called the first step.

The reason this is hardly outrageous to me is that it's already the case at some places. You simply don't become a Princeton professor of pure mathematics without being both prodigious at leading your field and being a valuable addition to the research community otherwise. Great. That's way, way above the reach of most people I know (which is fine).

For the rest of everyone, the problem is that getting a job as a researcher is still exceptionally hard, but at some point, not for really a great reason so much as the system is exclusive for being exclusive, which might be changed (I don't doubt this is tough) with some restructuring.

The fact that you have lots of physicists that get pushed out of the field and forced to do things that they *weren't* specifically trained for, seems like a good thing to me.

I tend to lose in a system in which people are narrowly traded, because I'm too curious and I get easily distracted. Now if you have a situation in which adaptability and breath of knowledge are important, then I do much better.

I certainly don't believe the only system in the world in which someone with an advanced physics/mathematics credential is academia. I think being adaptable and using one's breadth of knowledge to solve difficult mathematical problems is definitely just as hard as being a successful researcher in, say, pure mathematics.

What I hope for is that people end up where they should. I agree that those individuals who are kidding themselves about being suited for a relatively narrow research career (i.e. they just won't have the energy/interest to push themselves to publish lots of technical stuff in the narrow area) should be sent elsewhere. Hopefully, a majority of those who really enjoy and excel at the kind of work academia demands are not pushed out simply because the system doesn't allow for much of a middle ground.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I think, given the choice of starving or a job in Business, Economics, Finance.. Most will just change fields. Do you really want to be unemployed just because You only do a specific little known field of physics?

 

[HowardVAgnew]

I find it a scam from the getgo, but the scam comes not necessarily from the professors (I had an economics professor who said, outright, post-secondary education is getting a lower and lower return on investment as the cost of education is rising, year after year, much faster than the resulting average increase in income for a college graduate over a non-college graduate), but the same primary source of scamming in any business: the marketers writing the advertising.

Every advertisement for every school put before my eyes gives the same schpiel: Your life will be better pursuing a degree.

I pursued a degree, and that pursuit has cost me a great deal. Due to snafus in my student loan paperwork, which the university supposedly handled on its own, I lost eligibility for my student loan in my 3rd year with the University of Phoenix. My financial advisers with Phoenix insisted that my student loan was good to be renewed for my fourth and final year when, it was later revealed, he already knew it was not because the university had failed to properly fill out an application on my behalf as they were supposed to with the student loan provider. As a result, I agreed to enroll in a class I would not have had I known it would not be covered by the student loan, as there was no way I could afford tuition on my own not covered by the loan.

This triggered a series of events leading to the university locking my academic record so that I cannot transfer the credits I earned academically, have a student loan debt they profited from and the extra money I paid out of pocket for the 'books' (non-permanent digital documents that were only a tiny fraction of the actual textbooks that I had no access to when they locked my account, yet I was still charged hundreds of dollars apiece for much as I remember it costing for books when I attended a brick-and-mortar community college).

I now have debt I cannot repay, no credits I can transfer to another institution to try to continue pursuing a degree and no degree to improve my employability. The resulting clash between my limited employability, which in turns limits my income, against an enormous debt has, of course, been quite harmful to my credit score. Even the most medial jobs I have applied for run "background checks" that all involve credit checks, and this means that not only do I have a huge debt I've incurred while getting nothing meaningful to return (no degree), but my employability is actually reduced by the attempt than it would have been if I had never attempted to pursue a degree.

Academic institutions are privileged corporations. They are largely exempted from repaying customers when their actions or inactions result in their failure to provide what they promise in their advertising. The only two things I can think of that are on par with the massive financial cost of a degree are purchasing a car or purchasing a house, and its been my observation (though, granted, being in my situation, it seems improbable I will ever be in a position to buy a house or a brand new car and, thus, this condemns my premise to pure personal conjecture) the producers of homes and cars are far more accountable in terms of being answerable if they fail to provide what their advertisemens promise than universities.

A lot of people pursue degrees from a lot of universities, including Phoenix, with no problem, so I think the problem of what happens to those like me who fall through the cracks and incur problems like mine are lost to the crowd of those who managed to avoid hitting such mines. I feel quite strongly, though, the system is broken, and even for those who don't hit such a devastating landmine chasing after a degree, it is increasingly becoming a bad tradeoff; tuition frequently jumps by double-digit percentage points from one year to the next, but I am not aware of any time in recent history when average income among college graduates increases by the same amount.

Einstein himself, studying time and relativity, remarked that no force in the universe is as powerful as compound interest, and I think that justifies ringing the alarm when the cost of tuition increases more quickly than the extra income provided by a degree. If nothing is done, it seems to me that the result is harmful to society; the portion of the public with no postsecondary education will increase, and the burden of personal financial debt even to those who successfully acquire a degree will be more and more difficult for more and more graduates. I can only see a tiny minority of people -- corporate executives administering universities and already wealthy investors reciving dividends -- benefit from this cancer.

 

[alan2]

At the risk of starting something else entirely, it's no surprise that you feel scammed Howard. U of Phoenix is a scam. They are in the business of making money by getting you to apply for loans so that you can give them the money. The degree is worthless. Don't worry about not being able to transfer the credits because I am unaware of any reputable institution of higher learning that will accept your classes for transfer credit anyway. If your advisers (who work on commission) told you otherwise then you were lied to.

That said, I agree that there are a lot of people in 4 year degree programs that don't belong there. That's not necessarily because of the schools. Every kid is bombarded from birth with the story that they have to go to college. College enrollment in the US has increased by 50% in just a couple of decades (the primary reason for increased cost) while manufacturing, as a percentage of GDP has fallen from over 40% to only 10% since 1960. Not good. I recall an older student who was taking calc 2 for the 3rd or 4th time and failing again. I got chatting with him and it turned out that he was a BMW mechanic making well into 6 figures and thinking that somehow something would be better if he was an engineer. But he loved his job and he was good at it. I suggested he just be the best BMW mechanic he could be and I think that's what he's probably still doing. Policy pushes people to unrealistic educational goals, not schools.

 

[HowardVAgnew]

I agree, the general gist perpetuated that getting a degree can only make you better and never harm you is part of the problem, too. I am also reminded of a university in New Orleans getting away with charging students tuition for classes they could not possibly provide due to the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina, so I know it isn't just the University of Phoenix. I have no reason to not believe all institutes of higher learning scam their students, public or private ... I think a majority of present and former students in schools of higher learning have a common suspicion the outrageous amounts charged for books is a scam between schools and publishers, and required 'current edition' mandates are primarily to bilk students in preventing secondhand sales.

 

[Pyrrhus]

For graduate students in STEM, the "scam" is they are hire to do all these beautiful research they love, and then they graduate and can't find jobs doing what they love. They graduate without any debt as they are usually funded by the PhD Advisor research funds and/or teaching funds from the University. Also, if they are really good, fellowship money from private organizations, public organizations or the university itself. Thus, the scam is not that they have debts they cannot repay. The scam is they can't find jobs doing what they want to do.However, they can find jobs doing something else.

 

[deRham]

For graduate students in STEM, the "scam" is they are hire to do all these beautiful research they love, and then they graduate and can't find jobs doing what they love. They graduate without any debt as they are usually funded by the PhD Advisor research funds and/or teaching funds from the University. Also, if they are really good, fellowship money from private organizations, public organizations or the university itself. Thus, the scam is not that they have debts they cannot repay. The scam is they can't find jobs doing what they want to do.However, they can find jobs doing something else.

Exactly this! And I'll add, even if they're great at what they do.

To be fair though, nobody seems to say it's a guarantee that you'll get to do what you want, but the lack of word otherwise tends to give the wrong impression.

 

[HowardVAgnew]

Exactly this! And I'll add, even if they're great at what they do.

To be fair though, nobody seems to say it's a guarantee that you'll get to do what you want, but the lack of word otherwise tends to give the wrong impression.

In terms of actual meaning, I don't put too much value in possessing or lacking a Ph.D. Yes, I likely have a bias since I lack one, but I feel, in all fairness, someone who possesses one would also be biased. I don't pretend to have the expertise in any scientific field that those of you who do have one possess, but I also think of all the Ph.D.-wielding Creationists when I ask whether I should even bother arguing with someone who does possesses a Ph.D.

 

[ParticleGrl]

They graduate without any debt as they are usually funded by the PhD Advisor research funds and/or teaching funds from the University.

Of course, while they didn't have any debt, they have given up a few hundred thousand in forgone wages. And if they have debt from undergrad, it probably hasn't been paid down.

Lets say we got rid of "phd" as a degree, and a graduate student was simply a low paid (relative to other bachelors degree holders) scientific researcher- would people still do it? Does the distinction of "phd" have any value for researchers outside their field?

 

[deRham]

In terms of actual meaning, I don't put too much value in possessing or lacking a Ph.D. Yes, I likely have a bias since I lack one, but I feel, in all fairness, someone who possesses one would also be biased. I don't pretend to have the expertise in any scientific field that those of you who do have one possess, but I also think of all the Ph.D.-wielding Creationists when I ask whether I should even bother arguing with someone who does possesses a Ph.D.

Well, like you said yourself - you shouldn't assign too much meaning to whether the person has a PhD or not. I think open-mindedness on this and other topics is a trait quite independent of possessing a PhD or not.

The value of possessing a PhD is something I'd decide on an individual basis.

 

[mal4mac]

In the UK, at least, you can get reasonably well paid "research assistant" jobs with a BSc, and usually do a PhD while doing the job. I just checked on jobs.ac.uk and there are 315 such posts! Why not get a PhD while actually earning a reasonable wage?

 

[Choppy]

In the UK, at least, you can get reasonably well paid "research assistant" jobs with a BSc, and usually do a PhD while doing the job. I just checked on jobs.ac.uk and there are 315 such posts! Why not get a PhD while actually earning a reasonable wage?

Of course this is possible, but if you're working a full-time job during your PhD, it's difficult to make progress on it at the same rate as a full-time student, so as a student you have to find the right balance of progress and pay.

That being said, I think the point of this thread has more to do with what happens to graduates after the PhD is awarded.

 

[Choppy]

Lets say we got rid of "phd" as a degree, and a graduate student was simply a low paid (relative to other bachelors degree holders) scientific researcher- would people still do it? Does the distinction of "phd" have any value for researchers outside their field?

This is an interesting idea. To be honest I think a lot of people are interested in it for the perceived prestige (I mean, just look at all the posts on these forums that had to do with admissions at a "top N" school.) But the perceived prestige alone isn't enough to really sustain one through graduate school in my opinion and the people who just want to have impressive conversations at cocktail parties tend not to make it. I think the majority of people who would otherwise have completed a PhD would still go for it, even without the title. I would have, because that was the means of getting to where I wanted to be.

 

[Pyrrhus]

This is an interesting idea. To be honest I think a lot of people are interested in it for the perceived prestige (I mean, just look at all the posts on these forums that had to do with admissions at a "top N" school.) But the perceived prestige alone isn't enough to really sustain one through graduate school in my opinion and the people who just want to have impressive conversations at cocktail parties tend not to make it. I think the majority of people who would otherwise have completed a PhD would still go for it, even without the title. I would have, because that was the means of getting to where I wanted to be.

Definitely!, I would have left a LONG TIME ago if I didn't love the math, and the challenges of my research.

 

[atyy]

This is an interesting idea. To be honest I think a lot of people are interested in it for the perceived prestige (I mean, just look at all the posts on these forums that had to do with admissions at a "top N" school.) But the perceived prestige alone isn't enough to really sustain one through graduate school in my opinion and the people who just want to have impressive conversations at cocktail parties tend not to make it. I think the majority of people who would otherwise have completed a PhD would still go for it, even without the title. I would have, because that was the means of getting to where I wanted to be.

Definitely!, I would have left a LONG TIME ago if I didn't love the math, and the challenges of my research.

Really? You were so confident of staying in academia that you don't need a PhD?

A PhD is really only for those who leave academia - otherwise, how are they going to find jobs after being low paid workers for 5 years?

 

[deRham]

Why not? My impression is a fair number of PhDs might end up taking up jobs that don't in the slightest require the degree or even encourage it. The reason people aren't just low paid researchers is at least partially that there is supposed to be a significant transition period during the PhD phase.

After all, again as I keep saying, some areas of theoretical physics as well as theoretical mathematics certainly don't have a position for "graduate student cheap labor" outside, perhaps, of teaching. It is certainly possible that some researchers at Harvard math grad school are truly doing work that is already of higher quality than what most postdocs do, but I don't think that's the norm! Most of the time, a PhD student in aforementioned fields is a lot more clueless before 5 years than after, and truly is in a different phase from low paid research.

 

[bcrowell]

If professor x graduates 5 students and those 5 students graduate 5 more, and so on and so forth won't we reach a point where there will be complete oversaturation? Professors don't retire fast enough to compete with exponential growth.

Suppose we label schools by integers n, with n=1 being a community college, n=2 a decent state school, n=3 a good state school or private university with research, and n=4 a top-flight research university such as Berkeley or Harvard. The argument that exponential growth proves academia is a scam is only valid if professor x's 5 students all expect to have jobs at the same n as professor x. There are a lot more n=1's than n=2's, a lot more 2's than 3's, and a lot more 3's than 4's. I got my PhD at an n=4 and am very much enjoying my life teaching at a 1.

It would be unhealthy if professor x only produced 1 student. Many people get PhD's and don't want to be academics. Many people get PhD's but aren't really such super-talented scientific researchers that society ought to pay them with tax money to do scientific research. (I include myself in this category.) Most scientific research is not very good and not very important. It's good to wash out some percentage of wannabe scientists, so we don't waste massive amounts of money paying them to do second-rate research.

 

[atyy]

Suppose we label schools by integers n, with n=1 being a community college, n=2 a decent state school, n=3 a good state school or private university with research, and n=4 a top-flight research university such as Berkeley or Harvard. The argument that exponential growth proves academia is a scam is only valid if professor x's 5 students all expect to have jobs at the same n as professor x. There are a lot more n=1's than n=2's, a lot more 2's than 3's, and a lot more 3's than 4's. I got my PhD at an n=4 and am very much enjoying my life teaching at a 1.

It would be unhealthy if professor x only produced 1 student. Many people get PhD's and don't want to be academics. Many people get PhD's but aren't really such super-talented scientific researchers that society ought to pay them with tax money to do scientific research. (I include myself in this category.) Most scientific research is not very good and not very important. It's good to wash out some percentage of wannabe scientists, so we don't waste massive amounts of money paying them to do second-rate research.

But does it take talent to do first rate research in most fields?

Regardless, I do think it's good that most PhDs don't remain in academic research, because if they do, then the cutting edge doesn't get diffused into society, and PhDs become "elite".

 

[ParticleGrl]

Regardless, I do think it's good that most PhDs don't remain in academic research, because if they do, then the cutting edge doesn't get diffused into society

What does it mean for "the cutting edge" to get diffused? i.e. I used to do work in quantum field theory, now I work for an insurance company. I don't really use anything I learned in graduate school (my work now appears to be 90% sql/c#, 10% undergrad statistics). Similarly, a friend of mine did a phd in math (algebraic geometry) and he is now (after a two year associates) a nurse, etc.

If someone who does a phd in cutting edge semi-conductors and then gets hired by Intel to bring the academic research into industry, that's great. For most physicists, though, not getting an academic job means leaving the field entirely- how does this diffuse anything?

 

[ParticleGrl]

Suppose we label schools by integers n, with n=1 being a community college, n=2 a decent state school, n=3 a good state school or private university with research, and n=4 a top-flight research university such as Berkeley or Harvard. The argument that exponential growth proves academia is a scam is only valid if professor x's 5 students all expect to have jobs at the same n as professor x. There are a lot more n=1's than n=2's, a lot more 2's than 3's, and a lot more 3's than 4's. I got my PhD at an n=4 and am very much enjoying my life teaching at a 1.

I think this model doesn't work so well. There aren't many more physicists working in the n=1 and 2 than there are in the n=3,4. Yea, there are lots of liberal arts colleges, but most have only one or two physics profs (some will have none). A large research university can have 20+ physicists.

Also, n=1s are hiring less permanent staff and employing more adjuncts. Three small community colleges and two architecture schools in my area get the bulk of their physics courses taught by two shared adjuncts (who probably make 20k or less, no benefits when you add it all up). Basically, you can't count on a job at an n=1 or 2. Its still a fairly bad labor market.

 

[atyy]

What does it mean for "the cutting edge" to get diffused? i.e. I used to do work in quantum field theory, now I work for an insurance company. I don't really use anything I learned in graduate school (my work now appears to be 90% sql/c#, 10% undergrad statistics). Similarly, a friend of mine did a phd in math (algebraic geometry) and he is now (after a two year associates) a nurse, etc.

If someone who does a phd in cutting edge semi-conductors and then gets hired by Intel to bring the academic research into industry, that's great. For most physicists, though, not getting an academic job means leaving the field entirely- how does this diffuse anything?

Well, now insurance agents know QFT. That's surely diffusion of knowledge. BTW, I'm sure you've heard the story from me before, but Karhunen (Karhunen-Loeve theorem!) used to work in insurance. Maybe you'll consider that staying in the same field in his case, but I don't think he did (IIRC, a friend asked how he could stand it, and he replied that he still solved problems, just different ones). Also, QFT has benefitted a lot from probability, since the Euclidean path integrals in in constructive field theory all depend on stochastic processes theory. I guess my belief is that one shouldn't define "field" too narrowly. But perhaps my point of view is more that of an experimentalist, where success really depends on getting money for equipment (and luck!) and not on being talented. Since getting money is probably just as unsciency as working in insurance, I think most experimentalists don't do science by that measure.

 

[pi-r8]

What does it mean for "the cutting edge" to get diffused? i.e. I used to do work in quantum field theory, now I work for an insurance company. I don't really use anything I learned in graduate school (my work now appears to be 90% sql/c#, 10% undergrad statistics). Similarly, a friend of mine did a phd in math (algebraic geometry) and he is now (after a two year associates) a nurse, etc.

If someone who does a phd in cutting edge semi-conductors and then gets hired by Intel to bring the academic research into industry, that's great. For most physicists, though, not getting an academic job means leaving the field entirely- how does this diffuse anything?

I always figured that the diffusion was mostly along the lines of random conversation. Someone will read some random article about physics research, and they can ask you about it as "the physics person" and then that hopefully increases their interest in science and helps persuade more people to vote for increased scientific research funding.

 

[atyy]

I always figured that the diffusion was mostly along the lines of random conversation. Someone will read some random article about physics research, and they can ask you about it as "the physics person" and then that hopefully increases their interest in science and helps persuade more people to vote for increased scientific research funding.

Yes, except a bit less cynically.

Basically, if ParticleGrl becomes president, that will be a worthy diffusion. (Except that going by her current mood, she'll probably stop all physics funding;)

 

[ParticleGrl]

I always figured that the diffusion was mostly along the lines of random conversation. Someone will read some random article about physics research

In many years of bartending (first in a college town as a phd student, then in a tourist resort as a phd), exactly 0 coworkers asked me anything about physics (although they did take it upon themselves for some friendly pranks, like etching ",phd" into my nametags).

I don't think very many people read random articles about physics research. If we want to increase scientific knowledge, sticking random phds into people's everyday life in the hopes they ask them some questions is terribly inefficient. Your better bet is probably an incentive/training program to get phds teaching in middle and high schools. If the interest isn't instilled in them young, its probably too late by the time they are adults.

Except that going by her current mood, she'll probably stop all physics funding

If I could social engineer on that sort of level, I'd more likely push for a strong industrial policy/mercantilism. Give manufacturing a shot in the arm, and physicists will be in higher demand. But until there is higher demand, I stand by the assertion that training lots of scientists in the hopes that some go into politics is silly. A better question is how can we get science into curriculums at law schools? If you want your president to know physics, teach the people likely to go into politics some physics.

 

[atyy]

If I could social engineer on that sort of level, I'd more likely push for a strong industrial policy/mercantilism. Give manufacturing a shot in the arm, and physicists will be in higher demand. But until there is higher demand, I stand by the assertion that training lots of scientists in the hopes that some go into politics is silly. A better question is how can we get science into curriculums at law schools? If you want your president to know physics, teach the people likely to go into politics some physics.

OK, I'm voting you for president (too bad I'm not a citizen)!

 

[pi-r8]

In many years of bartending (first in a college town as a phd student, then in a tourist resort as a phd), exactly 0 coworkers asked me anything about physics (although they did take it upon themselves for some friendly pranks, like etching ",phd" into my nametags).

I don't think very many people read random articles about physics research. If we want to increase scientific knowledge, sticking random phds into people's everyday life in the hopes they ask them some questions is terribly inefficient. Your better bet is probably an incentive/training program to get phds teaching in middle and high schools. If the interest isn't instilled in them young, its probably too late by the time they are adults.

Hmm I've been asked a lot of questions by random friends and family members... not so much coworkers though. I don't have a PhD just a bachelor's degree. And, on the flip side, I also ask them questions about whatever subject their degree was in.

Admittedly most questions were of the "do you think the LHC will destroy the earth?" variety which is... kind of annoying... but I do my best.

 

[mal4mac]

Suppose we label schools by integers n, with n=1 being a community college...

Why not include n=0 - a school? Then there is actually a shortage of physics graduates! Isn't it just as good teaching in a school? Given the shortage of physics graduates, you should be able find jobs teaching classes with motivated pupils in good schools (if you don't fancy the challenge of 'difficult' pupils...)

 

[mayonaise]

If I could social engineer on that sort of level, I'd more likely push for a strong industrial policy/mercantilism. Give manufacturing a shot in the arm, and physicists will be in higher demand. But until there is higher demand, I stand by the assertion that training lots of scientists in the hopes that some go into politics is silly. A better question is how can we get science into curriculums at law schools? If you want your president to know physics, teach the people likely to go into politics some physics.

Or teach physics people politics. I think it's quite arrogant to think "the other side", which is everyone except scientists, should come and understand how important science is. How much politics/economics/law do you think the average physics grad understands? And if they, we, didn't learn any of these in our youth, how well are we equipped for power struggle? These are exactly the social subjects! Any wonder that people in power don't know science? I don't even think it's moral to personally ask the president to understand physics, given how little I understand our law.

Also, once you learn politics/economics/law, you might find that science is not so important to so many people after all.

 

[ParticleGrl]

How much politics/economics/law do you think the average physics grad understands?

I'm willing to be most science majors took at least one or two econ classes in college. Probably more for physics and math majors (the two semester micro/macro course was considered an easy A for people who already knew calculus well). And I'm not talking about teaching senators string theory, I'm talking about trying to make sure they have a decent, basic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

I don't even think it's moral to personally ask the president to understand physics, given how little I understand our law.

Moral is a strange word here. Anyway, the reason why the analogy is bad is that law makers set the scientific and industrial policy for the nation. Politicians ARE involved in scientific policy, but scientists aren't usually particularly involved in making laws. I'd suggest that scientists who go into policy should certainly know something about politics- and I'm willing to bet they do.

Why not include n=0 - a school? Then there is actually a shortage of physics graduates!

I'm not sure this is true either. At least in the US, k-12 schools have been shedding people for years now. There are a fair number of high school science/physics teachers looking for work.

 

[atyy]

Or teach physics people politics. I think it's quite arrogant to think "the other side", which is everyone except scientists, should come and understand how important science is. How much politics/economics/law do you think the average physics grad understands? And if they, we, didn't learn any of these in our youth, how well are we equipped for power struggle? These are exactly the social subjects! Any wonder that people in power don't know science? I don't even think it's moral to personally ask the president to understand physics, given how little I understand our law.

Also, once you learn politics/economics/law, you might find that science is not so important to so many people after all.

No, of course not - no one is saying that physicists don't have to understand politics. In fact, physics as an experimental science depends tremendously on politics. And yes, it is moral and necessary for the president to understand physics - energy and defence are major political issues that depend on physics. Now what is the reason for maintaining cutting edge "esoteric" research in particle physics when there are tons of important problems that can be solved by existing technology if social organization permits? The reason is that knowledge not maintained is knowledge lost. And yes, even biology (my field) benefits from the overarching framework of high energy physics. Of course, it doesn't have to be the bulk of physics research - and it isn't - but a critical number of workers has to be maintained.

"Politics is more difficult than physics." Albert Einstein
"If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is." John von Neumann

 

[Pyrrhus]

Really? You were so confident of staying in academia that you don't need a PhD?

A PhD is really only for those who leave academia - otherwise, how are they going to find jobs after being low paid workers for 5 years?

A PhD in Economics is highly in demand. I can type in any job search engine "PhD Economics", and there will be MANY MANY MANY job postings requiring one. Both Industry, and Academia. Thus, I am not worried. In fact, I have already applied to several jobs, and I am just waiting for job offers.

 

[twofish-quant]

It seems that everyone who starts a PhD wants to be an academic. Clearly this is not possible nor sustainable.

I think it is as long as you define "academic" in ways that doesn't include being a full time researcher exclusively paid for the job.

 

[twofish-quant]

Lets say we got rid of "phd" as a degree, and a graduate student was simply a low paid (relative to other bachelors degree holders) scientific researcher- would people still do it? Does the distinction of "phd" have any value for researchers outside their field?

It does for me. In my family, getting a doctorate degree is rite of passage akin to getting married or having kids. This started in the 18th century, where passing the Chinese Imperial Examinations meant that you were "upper class", and the social meaning of that got transferred to getting a Ph.D.

One thing that I noticed was that there were a lot of people descended from Eastern European Jews in the astronomy department, and I suspect that there is a similar cultural meaning.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm willing to be most science majors took at least one or two econ classes in college.

One thing about classes is that they can be useless. One problem with economics classes is that they there is an effort to make economics work like physics, which is bad in a lot of ways. You can go through an intro physics class with the belief that what you are being taught isn't totally wrong, but there is no such guarantee with an economics class.

Anyway, the reason why the analogy is bad is that law makers set the scientific and industrial policy for the nation. Politicians ARE involved in scientific policy, but scientists aren't usually particularly involved in making laws. I'd suggest that scientists who go into policy should certainly know something about politics- and I'm willing to bet they do.

One of the reasons I think my Ph.D. education was excellent was that I got a lot of training in the politics of science. A lot of times, you found yourself in a lunch time discussion about the latest goings-on in Washington, and from time to time we'd have speakers from the NSF or NASA talk about things.

The scientists that I knew were *very* heavily involved in making laws and getting funding. One of the big issues that I remember was the effort to get NASA to send up another space shuttle mission to repair Hubble, and AAS was very heavily involved there.

The other thing is that I went to a big public university, and the interaction between the department, the university, and the state legislature was something that was just part of the background.

 

[twofish-quant]

A PhD in Economics is highly in demand. I can type in any job search engine "PhD Economics", and there will be MANY MANY MANY job postings requiring one. Both Industry, and Academia. Thus, I am not worried. In fact, I have already applied to several jobs, and I am just waiting for job offers.

But there is a catch. It's harder to get into a Ph.D. economics program than it is to get into a Ph.D. physics program, and much, much harder to get funding.

 

[twofish-quant]

What does it mean for "the cutting edge" to get diffused? i.e. I used to do work in quantum field theory, now I work for an insurance company. I don't really use anything I learned in graduate school (my work now appears to be 90% sql/c#, 10% undergrad statistics). Similarly, a friend of mine did a phd in math (algebraic geometry) and he is now (after a two year associates) a nurse, etc.

I had a job in which I wasn't using much of what I was doing in graduate school, but in the end I was going crazy so I quit and found another job. The one big catch was that I had to move to New York City.

What finally did it for me was that I found out that an "old college rival" of mine had just been named a dean of a major university, and at that point I knew that I'd either mentally explode in a bad way or mentally explode in a good way, and exploding in a good way meant going to NYC. NYC is one of the most insane places on the planet, and I had to go there to keep my sanity.

For most physicists, though, not getting an academic job means leaving the field entirely- how does this diffuse anything?

We are looking at different parts of the elephant, but physics is diffusing pretty heavily into high finance. Also one thing that is cool about NYC is that you end up with very different people colliding with each other, and that produces all sorts of crazy interactions.

The other thing is that I don't think I have really "left the field". I'm still on good terms with my adviser and his research network, and I'll find my way back.

 

[atyy]

The other thing is that I don't think I have really "left the field". I'm still on good terms with my adviser and his research network, and I'll find my way back.

That's great! I thought it a rule of thumb that students don't get along with their advisors (maybe reading too much PhD comics:)

 

[Pyrrhus]

But there is a catch. It's harder to get into a Ph.D. economics program than it is to get into a Ph.D. physics program, and much, much harder to get funding.

YES, and YES. I guess that's how they fixed the issue in economics... It's hard to get in, and even harder to get funding. Frankly, I think a BS in Math/Physics/Engineering should be able to get in Econ Grad school. However, I've seen Econ minors, and Double Math and Econ as graduate students. This may make it harder for future BS Math/Physics/Engineering to get into Econ Grad School. I guess times are changing as students are deciding to abandon dreams in PhD in Physics. I think in a way is sad as research in physics is the reason we have many of our current technological advances. Is USA going to stagnate?

 

[pi-r8]

YES, and YES. I guess that's how they fixed the issue in economics... It's hard to get in, and even harder to get funding. Frankly, I think a BS in Math/Physics/Engineering should be able to get in Econ Grad school. However, I've seen Econ minors, and Double Math and Econ as graduate students. This may make it harder for future BS Math/Physics/Engineering to get into Econ Grad School. I guess times are changing as students are deciding to abandon dreams in PhD in Physics. I think in a way is sad as research in physics is the reason we have many of our current technological advances. Is USA going to stagnate?

Is it not obvious that we've been stagnating for the last 12 years? Not that nothing has been accomplished but... the pace of accomplishments has definitely slowed down. That's why there's so much nostalgia for the fashion and pop culture of previous decades.

 

[twofish-quant]

YES, and YES. I guess that's how they fixed the issue in economics... It's hard to get in, and even harder to get funding.

And the problem is that it's so hard to get in that it kills research. If you want to make it in economics, the last thing that you want is to come up with a new or original idea or anything that's the slightest bit risky or controversial.

One problem that I have with economics academics is that I don't think that anyone outside of economics really reads any of the research gets published in the economics journals, outside of some of the more technical econometric stuff. Getting published in the right journals is critical for getting tenure track, but it's not useful for that much else.

Also the status hierarchy is different in economics and physics. In physics, if a tenured Harvard professor gives a talk, and some random person without a Ph.D., says "this is total non-sense" then that person is going to be seen as a crank. In economics, you could have a tenured professor from the London School of Economics or University of Chicago give a talk and if a trader or hedge fund manager or Fortune 500 CEO who dropped out of college says "this is total non-sense" then more likely then not it's going to be the professor that is seen as the crank.

The flip side of this is that because industry has higher status than academia, the universities have to put together extremely attractive packages to compensate.

I guess times are changing as students are deciding to abandon dreams in PhD in Physics. I think in a way is sad as research in physics is the reason we have many of our current technological advances. Is USA going to stagnate?

Hard to say. I've learned not to say "X is going to happen" but rather "Assuming that X is the case, then Y will happen, so I should do Z."

 

[twofish-quant]

Is it not obvious that we've been stagnating for the last 12 years? Not that nothing has been accomplished but... the pace of accomplishments has definitely slowed down. That's why there's so much nostalgia for the fashion and pop culture of previous decades.

On the other hand grew up in the 1970's when much the same sort of thing happened. This may be a long cycle. Or not. It's hard to tell.

The other question is whether this "stagnation" is just the inevitable consequence of history. The United States was the "only nation standing" in 1945 and 1991 and as time passes, US relative power is going to definitely decline.

The other thing is that the world looks really, really different if you look at it from somewhere else. If you talk to someone that is British, French, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, or Canadian, they are going to have a *vastly* different view on things than talking to an American.

 

[twofish-quant]

Now what is the reason for maintaining cutting edge "esoteric" research in particle physics when there are tons of important problems that can be solved by existing technology if social organization permits?

During the Cold War, the reason that lots of money went into basic physics research was "I don't know what we'll find, but we'll all be waving red flags and holding pictures of Lenin if the Russians find it first." We got the internet out of that. For that matter, the World Wide Web was invented in CERN.

What I'd like to see is "friendly competition" between national governments. Basically the Cold War II without the threat of nuclear annihilation and without anyone getting killed. So someone shows up in Washington asking for money to research electric cars, and if the answer is no, they look at the next flight to Beijing, Moscow, Dubai, Brussels, or New Delhi.

The reason is that knowledge not maintained is knowledge lost. And yes, even biology (my field) benefits from the overarching framework of high energy physics. Of course, it doesn't have to be the bulk of physics research - and it isn't - but a critical number of workers has to be maintained.

True but those workers don't have to be in the United States, and around 1990, the US Congress made the decision that as far as HEP goes, they wouldn't be when they zeroed out funding for the supercollider.

 

[twofish-quant]

The reason this is hardly outrageous to me is that it's already the case at some places.

On the other hand, is it a good thing? We are talking about changing the system, so the fact that the system is already a certain way doesn't mean that you should keep it that way.

What I hope for is that people end up where they should. I agree that those individuals who are kidding themselves about being suited for a relatively narrow research career (i.e. they just won't have the energy/interest to push themselves to publish lots of technical stuff in the narrow area) should be sent elsewhere.

But is that a good thing? One thing about physics is that the reason that physics gets the money is that the generals and CEO want better bombs and toasters. One of the *good* things about this is that in order to get what the generals and CEO's want, you *can't* be narrowly focused on a small technical research area. You *have* to think broadly about what you are doing and to function in an environment where you have to think politically and philosophically.

The problem with "sending people elsewhere" is that it totally guts the research effort and undermines the political point of the exercise. Also, "where is elsewhere?"

Hopefully, a majority of those who really enjoy and excel at the kind of work academia demands are not pushed out simply because the system doesn't allow for much of a middle ground.

But what if you are flexible? Tell me what I should enjoy.

 

[twofish-quant]

Academic institutions are privileged corporations. They are largely exempted from repaying customers when their actions or inactions result in their failure to provide what they promise in their advertising.

Have you talked to a lawyer? Lawyers are good at sending out "nasty-grams" that can handle these sorts of situations. One trick that large corporations do is that they make you think that you have a lot less power than you really do.

Also UoP is a cash cow because the can issue a piece of paper that (supposedly) gets you a job. When I taught there I got $1000/month. There were 15 students paying $1000/month. About 40% of the money went into advertising and 10% went to pay instructors. You can see this from their older annual reports (pre-2007), although the newer ones have changed the categories so that it's much less obvious that this is what is going on.

Now, in a pure market, you could pay me the $800/month, I could teach you exactly the same Algebra I course, and we'd both be better off, but the problem is that you don't get that piece of paper that entitles you to a loan or a job.

It gets worse. Knowledge is created by social networks, and UoP tries very hard to keep those networks from forming, because if the students and the teachers were to talk to each other rather than going through the administration, you could have some sort of revolt.

Also, the UoP business model is different from the Harvard/MIT business model. The Harvard/MIT business model is to take young people, brainwash them, then have them infiltrate the power elite so that they can direct money and power back at Harvard and MIT. This works pretty well for the "secret agent" since UoP doesn't care what happens once they get your check, whereas Harvard and MIT really care that if you become President of a major superpower or win the Nobel prize.

Einstein himself, studying time and relativity, remarked that no force in the universe is as powerful as compound interest, and I think that justifies ringing the alarm when the cost of tuition increases more quickly than the extra income provided by a degree.

Those aren't the relevant numbers. Education provides huge productivity benefits, so as long as the productivity increase is more than the cost, there is some wealth around that can be used. The question is how this wealth flows.

I can only see a tiny minority of people -- corporate executives administering universities and already wealthy investors reciving dividends -- benefit from this cancer.

Karl Marx figured this out about 130 years ago, but people figured out ways around this.

The thing about education is that it can be frightfully cheap. Here is a list of books to read. Read them. Education is so cheap that you have to go through a lot of effort to figure out how to charge for it.

 

[chiro]

What I'd like to see is "friendly competition" between national governments. Basically the Cold War II without the threat of nuclear annihilation and without anyone getting killed. So someone shows up in Washington asking for money to research electric cars, and if the answer is no, they look at the next flight to Beijing, Moscow, Dubai, Brussels, or New Delhi.

The sentiment and the idea is great, but personally I'd rather private institutions do this sort of thing, or rather a movement towards private institutions do the majority of this kind of thing.

We are seeing this kind of thing anyway but its usually more of an engineering aspect and not a 'discovery' scientific aspect in the way that the payoff is not at all guaranteed and the risk high.

But when I here of say a private company building a quantum computer and selling it to places like Lockheed Martin and a major university, I get the sense that this kind of thing will expand a great deal in the future and if we ever retain some kind of fair competitive capitalistic system, then this kind of thing will be 'the model' as opposed to just 'a model'.

Personally I see governments as a monopoly and monopolies have a bad track record in innovating and being forced to do the best job they can if they don't have to.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The sentiment and the idea is great, but personally I'd rather private institutions do this sort of thing, or rather a movement towards private institutions do the majority of this kind of thing.

I'm not sure that works. Back when AT&T was a huge monopoly, they were engaged in exactly this, and everyone benefited (though they were paying higher telecom costs than they otherwise would have been). However, as the market grew more competitive, Bell Labs was spun off, and then shifted from fundamental to applied research. Its now a shadow of its former self. Other industrial labs have gone the same way. As companies become more competitive, fundamental R&D shrinks.

I think one take-away of the last thirty or forty years is that markets aren't great at valuing scientific research (consider the number of innovators who died penniless). It seems like you need a large institution that can spend a lot of money without worrying about being able to monetize it. One potential cause is that innovations have a tendency to spread to lots of companies in industry, so there is a free-rider problem. The creator of a technology might not make the money, an imitator might get rich instead.

 

[chiro]

I'm not sure that works. Back when AT&T was a huge monopoly, they were engaged in exactly this, and everyone benefited (though they were paying higher telecom costs than they otherwise would have been). However, as the market grew more competitive, Bell Labs was spun off, and then shifted from fundamental to applied research. Its now a shadow of its former self. Other industrial labs have gone the same way. As companies become more competitive, fundamental R&D shrinks.

I think one take-away of the last thirty or forty years is that markets aren't great at valuing scientific research (consider the number of innovators who died penniless). It seems like you need a large institution that can spend a lot of money without worrying about being able to monetize it. One potential cause is that innovations have a tendency to spread to lots of companies in industry, so there is a free-rider problem. The creator of a technology might not make the money, an imitator might get rich instead.

Firstly for the imitator getting rich, that's going to be likely to happen if the creator was not a businessperson. If the creator has a desire to be acknowledged for his creation in a financial manner, then they have to understand that this requires understanding money, how people interact, how deals get made and so on. Unfortunately this is how humans interact and the social component that is often lacking in many inventors and scientists with regard to creating deals, shaking hands, playing rounds on the golf course and so on is required if this is the ultimate goal.

In short many scientists and inventors are not salesman or businessman and don't understand the game that is being played. If they want to play fine, but its a different game with different rules.

In terms of markets evaluating good research, you really have to define good. I actually agree with your sentiment in the way that good to a company is going to be something that ultimately benefits 'their bottom line' and often this can end up being contradictory in terms of benefit to humans in the long run.

For example it doesn't make sense for a business to develop a product that doubles the lifetime of an existing product because that means that the business can sell one item that lasts for twice as long which means they just lot a lot of potential sales in a specific time-frame. Sure it might help the planet, but it affects so called 'growth': its really screwed up I know.

The other thing that I think supports your argument is that when you privatize something, things are kept secret or things like patents enter the picture which funnily end up destroying innovation due to the draconian barbaric policies enforced by patent lawyer conglomerates for the big multinationals.

Having said the above, the one thing that a real sound capitalistic system provides is good to honest fair competition and this does have a habit of giving consumers a choice and forcing business to do what they need to do to keep up with the Jones' business. In the end it forces businesses to give the consumer a good deal which means businesses that don't give consumers what they want die and the ones that do keep going.

Just so you know, I am aware that it's not this easy when you have the Walmarts coming in, undercutting prices and forcing the local guys out of business and that because of this kind of thing the playing ground is not 'fair' in different ways, but capitalism as a tool does tend to create a lot of innovation and benefits for consumers in industries that have a lot of competition.

If somehow there was a way to merge these qualities together!

I know what I've said in many respects is highly idealized in certain respects, but there are benefits for privatization. But academia too has its place and purpose and it won't be disappearing anytime soon anyway.

Also for the ones who are not scammers (and even some that are!) investors will pump money into inventors if they are confident that it is worth pursuing so the idea of privatization is not really so far fetched for science.

Also there are people that are offering prize money for competitions for building better robots, more effecient cars and so on but it is acknowledged that this is not a 'mainstream' thing.

 

[twofish-quant]

The sentiment and the idea is great, but personally I'd rather private institutions do this sort of thing, or rather a movement towards private institutions do the majority of this kind of thing.

I don't care how the sausage gets made.

Personally I see governments as a monopoly and monopolies have a bad track record in innovating and being forced to do the best job they can if they don't have to.

If you have competing national governments, then they aren't a monopoly anymore.

 

[chiro]

I don't care how the sausage gets made.

I do!

If you have competing national governments, then they aren't a monopoly anymore.

Can you honestly imagine the kind of situation you are describing? Governments actually inventing stuff and then actually 'sharing' that with other countries/governments?

Maybe you should ask governments to release all the stuff that is covered under 'national security' or similar for your government of choice just as a 'pilot project' to get this whole thing started.

I'd be very interested in seeing how far you get.

 

[chill_factor]

I do!



Can you honestly imagine the kind of situation you are describing? Governments actually inventing stuff and then actually 'sharing' that with other countries/governments?

Maybe you should ask governments to release all the stuff that is covered under 'national security' or similar for your government of choice just as a 'pilot project' to get this whole thing started.

I'd be very interested in seeing how far you get.

i'd like to stay out of politics but let me make an observation:

all private corporations are dictatorships to their employees and are run as command economies internally. yet they can compete with each other.

why not national governments?