https://cen.acs.org/acs-news/comment/stop-calling-nontraditional-careers/96/i32
A chemist points out that when most of the PhD holders do something other than work in academia and that's been the situation for years, then holding up academia as the standard doesn't make sense.
A related article points out that only 13% of people who majored in the physical sciences then go on to work in the physical or life sciences arena (https://cen.acs.org/careers/nontraditional-careers/chemistry-job/97/i28) and late-stage grad students are much less likely to want an academic job than early-stage grad students (ibid).
Likewise, a 2017 study indicates that most physics PhD holders are doing something other than physics (https://www.aip.org/statistics/whos-hiring-physics-phds). A first-destination-after-grad-school survey indicates that people in potentially permanent positions don't tend to be in academia (https://www.aip.org/statistics/physics-trends/physics-phds-1-year-later-0). A quick check on salary comparisons provides one possible explanation (https://www.aip.org/statistics/physics-trends/typical-starting-salaries-new-physics-doctorates).
Uhh....what's CEN?
;--}
M.
Quote from: mamselle on July 28, 2019, 09:52:43 AM
Uhh....what's CEN?
Per the link:
Chemical & Engineering News, a publication of the American Chemical Society.
oh. Oops. Soorrry...
I thought it was another one of those acronyms they're going to test us on at the end of the semester.
M.
Quote from: mamselle on July 28, 2019, 09:58:47 AM
I thought it was another one of those acronyms they're going to test us on at the end of the semester.
Well, if they do, you'll get it right! :)
Back on topic: I concur with the author of the piece that "tradition" has evolved and that the "traditional"/"non-traditional" employment binary isn't helpful or particularly useful.
Quote from: mamselle on July 28, 2019, 09:58:47 AM
oh. Oops. Soorrry...
I thought it was another one of those acronyms they're going to test us on at the end of the semester.
M.
Don't ask the professor if it's going to be on the test; just put it in your flash card set.
<more seriously>
The Chronicle of Higher Education tends to focus heavily on the professional societies for humanities, so I'm bringing in perspective from my professional societies regarding job prospects and career activities. My hope is that if we share information, then maybe more people will get to good places in their lives/careers with less floundering amid the-increasingly-inaccurate assertions that the tenure-track academic path is the One True Path and everything else is alternative.
I just looked at job placement data from my professional organization (for a social science). The data is for initial job placement upon completing a PhD. Most recent data is for 2018. Since 2011, the proportion reporting "not placed" in any form of employment has remained fairly constant at 12-15%. The proportion of those who obtained tenure-track academic employment fell from about 40% to 26%. Post-docs have increased to 20%. Another 20% are in part-time or full-time non-tenure track academic positions. 11% are in non-academic employment.
These numbers indicate to me that my field is doing a terrible job preparing grad students for non-academic careers as the availability of tenure-track academic positions declines. Or, put another way, there is less reason to pursue a PhD in this field because a career as a tenured professor is getting less likely.
Put yet another way, I would have earned a lot more money had I obtained a PhD in physics.