Ph.D. Production: A Global Perspective

Ph.D. Production Table How many science and engineering Ph.D.s can a nation use and support? Does the United States have a glut, or is it about to have one? What price is a nation able and willing to pay for producing Ph.D.s? What is the relationship between a nation's economy and its production of Ph.D.s? In trying to answer such questions, I examined 1998 data in a variety of countries from three perspectives: * Total number of Ph.D.s produced, * Per capita production of Ph.D.s, * Per capita production, adjusted to U.S. dollar purchasing power. These comparisons (see table) provided a few surprises that might stimulate some rethinking of national science policy regarding support for Ph.D. training. First, let us compare the annual production of Ph.D.s in the countries that dominate graduate education. The United States is by far the greatest producer of Ph.D.s, producing about twice as many as the next leading country, Germany. Countries with small populations, such as Canada and Switzerland, produce relatively few Ph.D.s. But many other countries that have huge populations, such as India and China, also produce relatively few. Quite a different picture emerges when Ph.D. production is expressed in per capita terms. Germany produces almost twice as many Ph.D.s per capita as does the United States. Switzerland produces almost three times as many, and even France and the United Kingdom produce more Ph.D.s per capita than does the United States. Japan and Canada do not lag as far behind the United States when viewed from this perspective. The countries with huge populations, such as India and China, produce very few Ph.D.s per capita. Impact of National Economies What do these figures say about a country's cultural commitment to higher education and scholarship? What makes the people of Switzerland or Germany place more value on education at the Ph.D. level? Historical tradition is no doubt a factor, but France, the United Kingdom, and other European countries also have long-standing scholarly traditions. Since U.S. culture is relatively young, it could be inferred that the United States is doing rather well in inculcating scholarly traditions in its population. But strong economies are also needed to provide jobs for the most highly trained people. Still another picture emerges when we examine Ph.D. production in terms of a national economy. China and India have a major disparity, producing far more Ph.D.s than the poverty of their people would predict. They are anomalous because of their huge populations and the relative primitiveness of their economies. These countries are paying a high price for their Ph.D.s, given that their gross national product (GNP) is so low. The United States could afford to produce many more Ph.D.s than it does. We read of the shortage of highly educated people for certain high-tech industries and the importing of a significant proportion of the Ph.D. workforce. In certain scientific and engineering fields, foreign graduate students are the norm. Sometimes people in this imported work force take their knowledge back home with them. The relationship of per capita GNP to Ph.D. production shows the United States still leads other countries, except China and India, but the lead is small--probably because the United States already has a high-tech, advanced economy, and the market for Ph.D.s is nearer saturation than it is in a developing country. However, the rules of the global and economic military games may change as competitor countries improve their own infrastructures. More Universities Needed Where will these countries get the expertise to train a sophisticated workforce, particularly the university faculty resources? They will either have to increase enrollment of their students in U.S. universities or will have to increase the number of their own universities. Either way, the demand for U.S. faculty could be expected to grow. In the old Soviet Union, large numbers of Ph.D.s were produced to support military development. Rogue nations are gaining sufficient expertise to become major threats to world peace and U.S. security. Much of that expertise comes from U.S.-trained Ph.D.s, and these countries are strengthening their own abilities to train scientists and engineers. Neither the United States nor anyone has mobilized its resources to develop effective defense against missile, biological, or chemical warfare. Increasing military sophistication will require more highly trained people. Changes in per capita GNP/Ph.D. production ratios might be useful in tracing society's economic and cultural evolution. The dynamics of such changes are, to my knowledge, not studied. But those who intuitively believe that the highest levels of education are important to a nation's culture, economy, and military preparedness, will surely be interested in finding ways to quantify the capacity of our country to support the production of Ph.D.s. Does it matter that we have such a large proportion of U.S.-trained Ph.D.s who are foreigners? Maybe not, if they stay in this country so that our culture and economy can benefit. But foreigners who leave take their skills and special knowledge with them, to bolster the economies and militaries of countries that may be military adversaries or economic competitors. Although in the last few years foreign enrollment in U.S. graduate programs has declined, the number of foreign doctoral science and engineering recipients in U.S. universities doubled over the decade ending in 1995.1 And that decline is probably only temporary, coinciding as it does with the recent economic downturn in Pacific Rim countries. Long term, foreign countries will be educating a greater proportion of scientists and engineers and consequently obtaining more cultural and economic benefit. Even as Asian students enter the U.S. science and engineering programs in record numbers, the number graduating from Asian universities has been increasing at about 17 percent a year since 1989.1 Recent U.S. Changes A nation's policy toward production of Ph.D.s needs to take into account the existing need (economic and military) and the people's ability to pay (per capita GNP). The per capita GNP data clearly show that the United States is able to pay for significantly more Ph.D.s in general and home-grown ones in particular. So to the extent that we believe that science and engineering drive our economic and military well-being, it makes sense to increase the production of the best-trained scientists and engineers. However, enrollment in U.S. science and engineering graduate programs peaked in 1993 and then began a decline of about 3 percent a year. Demographic mix, however, has changed. Now there are more women and minorities enrolled and fewer foreigners. Females now account for 38 percent of science and engineering graduate students.1 A conspicuous shift has occurred with foreign-student enrollment, which decreased by one to three percent between 1992 and 1994. The only substantive growth in graduate enrollments in the United States has occurred in the health sciences, which has increased by 2 percent from 1994 to 1995, as compared to growth of 5-6 percent in previous years.2 The old fears about producing a surplus of Ph.D.s may still have some justification. But this possibility has already been anticipated by students, whose enrollment in physics graduate programs has decreased by 25 percent since 1992.2 Last year, enrollment in U.S. engineering graduate programs decreased 3 percent.2 Another indicator that oversupply may not be a problem is that the nation's economy and military are much more committed to a high-tech age than they were the last time we had a temporary surplus. Besides, even when we thought the United States had "enough" Ph.D.s because some were driving taxis, a closer look reveals that Ph.D.s tend to be overspecialized and inept at applying for jobs. Historically, Ph.D.s have been trained to become university professors. Certainly, U.S. universities cannot currently absorb any surplus of Ph.D.s., although the burgeoning world population is requiring universities to expand and new ones to be created. Some universities are initiating innovative programs that make Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers more relevant and attractive to corporate America. The more those programs develop, the less likely we are to have a large pool of Ph.D.s that nobody wants to hire. Then there is the more philosophical perspective, voiced by National Science Foundation deputy director Anne Petersen, who says that "the Ph.D. should be construed in our society more like the law degree. A lot of people go to law school with no plans to practice law." Certainly, this nation can afford more scientists and engineers. Indeed, given a growing global economic competition, military threats from rogue nations that have increasing numbers of highly educated scientists and engineers, and the high-tech nature of today's world in general, the United States may find itself with an undersupply of scientists and engineers. U.S. universities need to produce Ph.D.s that are more relevant to today's world, industry must tap the talents of a more sophisticated workforce, and government science policy should not be unduly constrained by fears of oversupply of scientists and engineers. W.R. Klemm, D.V.M., Ph.D., is professor of neuroscience at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4458. E-mail: wklemm@cvm.tamu.edu References 1. Science and Engineering Indicators--1998, Higher Education in Science and Engineering, Washington, D.C., National Science Foundation. 2. Early data released from CGS/GRE survey: surface tranquillity belies undercurrent of change Peter D. Syverson, Council of Graduate Schools, www.cgsnet.org/vcr/cctr611.htm 3. Doctoral education: preparing for the future, Jules B. LaPidus, Council of Graduate Schools, www.cgsnet.org/pdf/Preparing1.pdf

Ph.D. Production: A Global Perspective

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of