Preparing Future Ph.D.'s For A Changing Job Market

The market for Ph.D.'s in science and engineering is a matter of perennial concern, both to employers and to those who earn these degrees and expect to make a career in the field of their choice. Predicting supply and demand of the scientific work force, however, is a tricky business fraught with uncertainties. In 1989, widely reported statistics from the National Science Foundation caused NSF to project a shortage of Ph.D. scientists by the middle to the end of this decade. Events turned out differently, and it is instructive to understand what happened. From what I can discern, NSF projected a drop in the number of bachelor's degrees in the natural sciences and in engineering based on a demographic decline in the number of college-age Americans. NSF then put forward a pipeline model in which bigger pipes feed smaller pipes in a progression from K-12 to undergraduate to graduate degrees. Thus, NSF projected a decline in Ph.D. degree production based on the reduced supply of bachelor's degree holders. This predicted shortfall was predicated upon perceived supply rather than market demand. An analysis of what happened yields some surprises. The 1989 projection of bachelor's degrees by NSF has proved to be rather accurate! Nevertheless, the Ph.D. degree production has risen far more rapidly than projected, primarily because of a steep increase since 1989 in the number of doctorates earned in the United States by foreign students. But what matters to most of us is not these numbers so much as whether a glut exists of beginning Ph.D. scientists and engineers who cannot find work in areas they expect to find it. Any oversupply is painful, especially for those who cannot obtain suitable employment. Stories abound of Ph.D. taxicab drivers, yet my own luck is such that I can never find one. Whether such stories are urban myths or not, the pain is palpable and cannot be dismissed lightly. It would be overly simplistic to suggest that the 1989 NSF study is responsible for most of the present pain of Ph.D. underutilization. Indeed, a complex set of factors is at play, many of which were not anticipated in 1989. Clearly, supply is only one factor that feeds into the actual job market. This market can be roughly divided into two sectors, the industrial sector and the academic sector. Both have undergone dramatic changes in the past eight years. In the industrial sector, the employment picture is highly dependent on field: Some areas, such as biotechnology and computer science, are experiencing rapid growth, while other areas, such as high-energy physics and aeronautical engineering, are experiencing stasis or decline. At the same time, a major shift has occurred as many industries change their focus from central corporate research laboratories to job opportunities tied more closely to marketing and manufacturing arms of the company. Other influential factors include reductions in federal defense R&D as a consequence of the end of the Cold War and the reduced government spending in federal laboratories as these institutions struggle to redefine their purpose for being. Unexpected changes also have taken place in the academic sector, where a downturn in employment has occurred owing to a switch from full-time tenure-track positions to more part-time, nontenure-track openings. Another factor contributing perhaps a transient blip to this downturn has been the nationwide removal of the age cap on mandatory faculty retirement. Clearly, some Ph.D. degree holders are feeling hurt as a result of these shifting trends. Knowing that the Ph.D. unemployment rate is well below that of other careers is little comfort to a disappointed individual. I believe that the percentage of Ph.D.'s so affected, however, is relatively small. Moreover, the system seems to be self-correcting in that graduate students demonstrate an uncanny ability to choose projects where the action is and where future job prospects are bright. The Ph.D. degree cannot be considered a guarantee for a particular kind of job. The reasons for pursuing a Ph.D. become perverted by imagining this to be the case. We must insist that such training is not for a specific career but rather preparation for a lifetime pursuit of creative problem-solving. I applaud efforts on the part of universities and NSF to prepare new Ph.D.'s for a changing job market and for encouraging fundamental change in the way they perceive job prospects. There will continue to be a need and a place to pursue research and teaching in the U.S. There also will be a need for Ph.D.'s in many places besides labs and classrooms. With a proper education and training, a Ph.D. holder has an immense advantage in the marketplace. The skills acquired while earning a Ph.D. are easily applicable to many professions. The training of scientists and engineers is a long and expensive process. We must have a national education policy that is based on the national interest in the advancement of knowledge through free and open inquiry in research in a university environment, one that integrates research and education, one that seeks to utilize all human talent available in our country, and one that is sensitive to the needs of the scientific and engineering work force as best as we can estimate them. We must realize that the time to complete a Ph.D. degree exceeds in general the time it takes trends in employment to change. A proper Ph.D. degree training is one that prepares the holder to follow many options. The Ph.D. degree must represent great depth and mastery in some area as well as general breadth. Reshaping the Ph.D. degree to take into account that most such degree holders will not be pursuing careers in research universities makes sense. To that end, it is important that we build breadth and flexibility into Ph.D. preparation. Richard N. Zare is chairman of the National Science Board and Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor of Chemistry at Stanford University.

Preparing Future Ph.D.'s For A Changing Job Market

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of