Lab Funk

[AJ_Katz]

Every PhD in my field, in Canada, other than UofT requires a master's. So, unless you are applying there, a master's is not a red flag at all, but a requirement. At my uni we can't admit PhD students unless they have a research-based master's or a course-based master's with at least one first-author pub.

I wish that was the case at the R1 universities where I've worked.  It seems to me that the post-doc is becoming what the PhD once was.

[Kron3007]

Are STEM grad programs still getting the same number of PhD applicants as in 2019, on average, and are the applicants they are getting considered as more or less as bright and well-prepared as their 2010s-era predecessors were?  I am specifically thinking of pure science PhD programs where most of the applicants may well see themselves as looking for academic careeers...

In our program, PhD applicants have to reach out to faculty and secure a potential advisor before they can apply, so it is hard to really know.  I have a lot of people reach out for PhDs.  Most are international, and of varying quality. 

I find most of my grad students through word of mouth and courses I teach. 

I've had such varying results with different methods.  One person who I took on through word of mouth has not worked out at all.  I've also recruited and interviewed, and that probably worked out the best.  I've also taken a number of students who had their own funding from other countries, which were successful to varying degrees.  Selecting graduate students seems to be one of the hardest things to crack.  Having a previous master's degree is not an indicator of future success, in my experience, and I think in retrospect, I should be the most cautious of that kind of student because if they do not turn out to be a good fit, it is harder to find an exit strategy.

Yes, selecting the right people is probably the most important and hardest  part.  It's hard to build a good product with faulty parts, but I don't know the secret to predicting performance.

I have also had hugely mixed results no matter what.  I think the most consistent results I have had is recruiting students who did their fourth year thesis with me since we both get to test drive the relationship.  I also have had pretty good success with student that came recommended from other labs.  Everything else seems like a crap shoot.

[Kron3007]

Every PhD in my field, in Canada, other than UofT requires a master's. So, unless you are applying there, a master's is not a red flag at all, but a requirement. At my uni we can't admit PhD students unless they have a research-based master's or a course-based master's with at least one first-author pub.

I wish that was the case at the R1 universities where I've worked.  It seems to me that the post-doc is becoming what the PhD once was.

In my field the MSc is still common, and most of our students actually stop there and go to industry.  Many of them don't really see a PhD as being better for employment, and can actually work against them.  So, a PhD is a lot of time/work without much return.

I think there is some truth to this, at least in my field.  I have met employers who avoid hiring PhDs.  Likely because they think they will demand more money, but also because they are seen as too academic and will want to spend their time reading etc instead of doing.  I don't think that is necessarily true, but truth dosnt always matter when it comes to stereotypes.

So, in my field the MSc still has an important role and is generally more popular than the PhD program.  As it should be IMO.

[apl68]

Are STEM grad programs still getting the same number of PhD applicants as in 2019, on average, and are the applicants they are getting considered as more or less as bright and well-prepared as their 2010s-era predecessors were?  I am specifically thinking of pure science PhD programs where most of the applicants may well see themselves as looking for academic careeers...

In our program, PhD applicants have to reach out to faculty and secure a potential advisor before they can apply, so it is hard to really know.  I have a lot of people reach out for PhDs.  Most are international, and of varying quality. 

I find most of my grad students through word of mouth and courses I teach. 

I've had such varying results with different methods.  One person who I took on through word of mouth has not worked out at all.  I've also recruited and interviewed, and that probably worked out the best.  I've also taken a number of students who had their own funding from other countries, which were successful to varying degrees.  Selecting graduate students seems to be one of the hardest things to crack.  Having a previous master's degree is not an indicator of future success, in my experience, and I think in retrospect, I should be the most cautious of that kind of student because if they do not turn out to be a good fit, it is harder to find an exit strategy.

A colleague of mine took someone with an Ivy League MS who was just terrible. Just goes to show that past performance doesn't always indicate future results.

Some people just don't seem able to progress from the master's to the PhD level.  I got through my MA just fine in grad school, but became hopelessly blocked at the dissertation stage.  Dropping out ABD was one of the hardest decisions of my life.

[Puget]

A colleague of mine took someone with an Ivy League MS who was just terrible. Just goes to show that past performance doesn't always indicate future results.

At least in my field, there are a ton of Ivy League 1-year coursework-only masters programs that have a reputation for being real junk in that they neither provide preparation for a specific job, nor good preparation for a PhD.

These programs actually have a very high acceptance rate, and attract students (many international) who are willing and able to pay top dollar for the prestige of having a degree with that institution's name on it. Essentially, they are selling the logo, and whether the product it is no has any intrinsic value is beside the point.

I spend years trying to talk international undergrads out of attending such programs until one of them kindly explained to me that it truly didn't matter if you they learned anything of value in such programs, only that they had a degree with a prestigious brand name to bring home to China as their ticket to a good job there. From that perspective it was a completely rational investment. That may be changing as Chinese universities become more prestigious while the US brand erodes in the face of current events. But while they last, those programs have been cash cows for these universities.