PhD & Unemployed
My friend got his PhD from LSE. He has been unemployed since. First, I though well he got a PhD from LSE, top tire university, maybe not in the most competitive subject, but still LSE is LSE, he should be able to get a job. I then started to think about reasons why I wouldn't employ a PhD from LSE. It turned out that there are quite a few. I then came to a conclusion that only those who have money (like inheritance or something) should do a PhD (doesn't matter where you do your PhD - no money no PhD) and those who need a job should never do a PhD. The HR don't know how to deal with candidates with a Master's, what would you expect them to do with PhDs?
Some bankers told me some jobs required a PhD. I said, well, with an organisation that employs about 80,000 employees globally, the number of positions that require a PhD is less than 0.5% and they are willing to fill almost 90% of 0.5% with those with a Master's.
I think PhD admissions committee should carefully interview all potential candidates and test their understanding of the (academia and non-academic) labour market. They should ask the question "how are you planning to get a job in academia and beyond?" The correct answer must show their understanding of the labour market, the scarcity of lectureships, trends in your subject, the percentage of those with a PhD and employed as an academic. The correct answer must not be melodramatic.
There should be no "passion" in academia. That's the recipe for disaster.
I wish my friend good luck on getting a job. It will take some time for him to understand what goes on in this world. The man's greatest enemy is his pride.
Some bankers told me some jobs required a PhD. I said, well, with an organisation that employs about 80,000 employees globally, the number of positions that require a PhD is less than 0.5% and they are willing to fill almost 90% of 0.5% with those with a Master's.
I think PhD admissions committee should carefully interview all potential candidates and test their understanding of the (academia and non-academic) labour market. They should ask the question "how are you planning to get a job in academia and beyond?" The correct answer must show their understanding of the labour market, the scarcity of lectureships, trends in your subject, the percentage of those with a PhD and employed as an academic. The correct answer must not be melodramatic.
There should be no "passion" in academia. That's the recipe for disaster.
I wish my friend good luck on getting a job. It will take some time for him to understand what goes on in this world. The man's greatest enemy is his pride.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by clungemagnet
My friend got his PhD from LSE. He has been unemployed since. First, I though well he got a PhD from LSE, top tire university, maybe not in the most competitive subject, but still LSE is LSE, he should be able to get a job. I then started to think about reasons why I wouldn't employ a PhD from LSE. It turned out that there are quite a few.
Well that's key, isn't it? If your research area isn't in demand than you are going to find it harder to land a job.
I then came to a conclusion that only those who have money (like inheritance or something) should do a PhD (doesn't matter where you do your PhD - no money no PhD) and those who need a job should never do a PhD.
I don't even know what your argument is. This is just stupid.
The HR don't know how to deal with candidates with a Master's, what would you expect them to do with PhDs?
This is stupid.
Some bankers told me some jobs required a PhD. I said, well, with an organisation that employs about 80,000 employees globally, the number of positions that require a PhD is less than 0.5% and they are willing to fill almost 90% of 0.5% with those with a Master's.
Untrue and stupid.
I think PhD admissions committee should carefully interview all potential candidates and test their understanding of the (academia and non-academic) labour market. They should ask the question "how are you planning to get a job in academia and beyond?" The correct answer must show their understanding of the labour market, the scarcity of lectureships, trends in your subject, the percentage of those with a PhD and employed as an academic. The correct answer must not be melodramatic.
No. All they look to test (and all they should look to test) is the candidate's ability, interest and potential in the research area. If they are good enough they'll be able to land a job regardless of prior misconceptions (not that they would necessarily have any). If they are not good enough, the faculty made a mistake in wasting their funding on these people.
There should be no "passion" in academia. That's the recipe for disaster.
This is stupid.
I wish my friend good luck on getting a job. It will take some time for him to understand what goes on in this world. The man's greatest enemy is his pride.
This is stupid.
........but other than all that, great post buddy!
Original post by V.K
........but other than all that, great post buddy!
Check out his user name and other posts, then adjust your expectations of an intelligent debate.
Academia is also part of the job market, just a very, very competitive one. Thus most of your points are easily to reject and prooved wrong. The job market, wether industry and academia, is sadly no paradise and some people fail, no matter how hard they worked and how they would like to please. Passion is one of the factors which allow you to thrive, both in academia and the industry and turning down a possibility just because you might fail after it, is very debatable.
Original post by clungemagnet
My friend got his PhD from LSE. He has been unemployed since. First, I though well he got a PhD from LSE, top tire university, maybe not in the most competitive subject, but still LSE is LSE, he should be able to get a job. I then started to think about reasons why I wouldn't employ a PhD from LSE. It turned out that there are quite a few. I then came to a conclusion that only those who have money (like inheritance or something) should do a PhD (doesn't matter where you do your PhD - no money no PhD) and those who need a job should never do a PhD. The HR don't know how to deal with candidates with a Master's, what would you expect them to do with PhDs?
Some bankers told me some jobs required a PhD. I said, well, with an organisation that employs about 80,000 employees globally, the number of positions that require a PhD is less than 0.5% and they are willing to fill almost 90% of 0.5% with those with a Master's.
I think PhD admissions committee should carefully interview all potential candidates and test their understanding of the (academia and non-academic) labour market. They should ask the question "how are you planning to get a job in academia and beyond?" The correct answer must show their understanding of the labour market, the scarcity of lectureships, trends in your subject, the percentage of those with a PhD and employed as an academic. The correct answer must not be melodramatic.
There should be no "passion" in academia. That's the recipe for disaster.
I wish my friend good luck on getting a job. It will take some time for him to understand what goes on in this world. The man's greatest enemy is his pride.
Some bankers told me some jobs required a PhD. I said, well, with an organisation that employs about 80,000 employees globally, the number of positions that require a PhD is less than 0.5% and they are willing to fill almost 90% of 0.5% with those with a Master's.
I think PhD admissions committee should carefully interview all potential candidates and test their understanding of the (academia and non-academic) labour market. They should ask the question "how are you planning to get a job in academia and beyond?" The correct answer must show their understanding of the labour market, the scarcity of lectureships, trends in your subject, the percentage of those with a PhD and employed as an academic. The correct answer must not be melodramatic.
There should be no "passion" in academia. That's the recipe for disaster.
I wish my friend good luck on getting a job. It will take some time for him to understand what goes on in this world. The man's greatest enemy is his pride.
I want to work in physics research/academia, despite coming from a relatively average/disadvantaged background. When selecting my degree course, I visited many universities, spoke to a number of graduates, and did lots of research. I need a PhD to do what I want to do.
It's virtually impossible to get a decent job in that field without a PhD, because the PhD is usually the way people get into the career. As part of your PhD usually involves being part of a research team and authoring a scientific paper, which isn't just training for the career - it's the start of the career.
And sure, the jobs are pretty scarce, but that doesn't mean people without zillions in the bank shouldn't be allowed to try. I honestly believe I'll be in a better position all-round if I have a PhD, and I'll happily take some other job in the interim. The financial sector, for example, wants physics graduates.
But your argument is that I'm too poor to do that? Obviously, people should take finances and the job market into account when deciding whether to do a PhD, and by the end of my masters I may well have changed my mind, but you shouldn't just ban people from studying what they want to study at postgraduate level just because of the job market.
It is, and should be, based on ability. Your entire argument is fallacious, and doesn't seem to be particularly well-informed.
I've been outside the University scene for more than a decade. I used to think being a researcher or lecturer were nice, cushy jobs. Doing interesting things, teaching nice interesting subjects. I'm not so sure it's that enjoyable nowadays. I would imagine also that some subjects are more competitive than others.
Original post by Klix88
Check out his user name and other posts, then adjust your expectations of an intelligent debate.
You have never worked, have you?
Original post by V.K
Well that's key, isn't it? If your research area isn't in demand than you are going to find it harder to land a job.
I don't even know what your argument is. This is just stupid.
This is stupid.
Untrue and stupid.
No. All they look to test (and all they should look to test) is the candidate's ability, interest and potential in the research area. If they are good enough they'll be able to land a job regardless of prior misconceptions (not that they would necessarily have any). If they are not good enough, the faculty made a mistake in wasting their funding on these people.
This is stupid.
This is stupid.
........but other than all that, great post buddy!
I don't even know what your argument is. This is just stupid.
This is stupid.
Untrue and stupid.
No. All they look to test (and all they should look to test) is the candidate's ability, interest and potential in the research area. If they are good enough they'll be able to land a job regardless of prior misconceptions (not that they would necessarily have any). If they are not good enough, the faculty made a mistake in wasting their funding on these people.
This is stupid.
This is stupid.
........but other than all that, great post buddy!
You have never worked, have you?
Original post by clungemagnet
You have never worked, have you?
People who call others stupid without being able to express why... I've no idea why they consider themselves to be oh so very intelligent.
Original post by dendodge
I want to work in physics research/academia, despite coming from a relatively average/disadvantaged background. When selecting my degree course, I visited many universities, spoke to a number of graduates, and did lots of research. I need a PhD to do what I want to do.
It's virtually impossible to get a decent job in that field without a PhD, because the PhD is usually the way people get into the career. As part of your PhD usually involves being part of a research team and authoring a scientific paper, which isn't just training for the career - it's the start of the career.
And sure, the jobs are pretty scarce, but that doesn't mean people without zillions in the bank shouldn't be allowed to try. I honestly believe I'll be in a better position all-round if I have a PhD, and I'll happily take some other job in the interim. The financial sector, for example, wants physics graduates.
But your argument is that I'm too poor to do that? Obviously, people should take finances and the job market into account when deciding whether to do a PhD, and by the end of my masters I may well have changed my mind, but you shouldn't just ban people from studying what they want to study at postgraduate level just because of the job market.
It is, and should be, based on ability. Your entire argument is fallacious, and doesn't seem to be particularly well-informed.
It's virtually impossible to get a decent job in that field without a PhD, because the PhD is usually the way people get into the career. As part of your PhD usually involves being part of a research team and authoring a scientific paper, which isn't just training for the career - it's the start of the career.
And sure, the jobs are pretty scarce, but that doesn't mean people without zillions in the bank shouldn't be allowed to try. I honestly believe I'll be in a better position all-round if I have a PhD, and I'll happily take some other job in the interim. The financial sector, for example, wants physics graduates.
But your argument is that I'm too poor to do that? Obviously, people should take finances and the job market into account when deciding whether to do a PhD, and by the end of my masters I may well have changed my mind, but you shouldn't just ban people from studying what they want to study at postgraduate level just because of the job market.
It is, and should be, based on ability. Your entire argument is fallacious, and doesn't seem to be particularly well-informed.
This is the naive view on PhD programmes one would get from people who just finished AS/A level or an undergraduate degree and have no idea how competitive the labour market is.
There is a difference between needing a PhD to get a job and getting an actual job. Even at most respectable institutions, the employment rate for PhDs is less than impressive. Ask your prospective supervisor "how many of your students now teach in university?" Trust me - they do not want to talk about it because that's not their job and if they start talking about that, they can't go to sleep because of the fear of losing their job.
Original post by pg_maths
People who call others stupid without being able to express why... I've no idea why they consider themselves to be oh so very intelligent.
I am not a lecturer, but just observing (not in a bad way) what my lecturers do day to day (and I go to one of the finest institutions!), I can't help but notice that what they do all day is office politics, relationship management if you will. There is no pure research or something like that. And they are terrified of losing their jobs!
Original post by Nathanielle
Academia is also part of the job market, just a very, very competitive one. Thus most of your points are easily to reject and prooved wrong. The job market, wether industry and academia, is sadly no paradise and some people fail, no matter how hard they worked and how they would like to please. Passion is one of the factors which allow you to thrive, both in academia and the industry and turning down a possibility just because you might fail after it, is very debatable.
This is also naive. Just try looking at the hard number and see how many PhDs actually manage to complete the programme and how many are in employment. Good for you, the first one is roughly 50 - 60%! The second one, you can't get the hard data - one of the darkest mysteries in academia.
One of the funniest things is that you get an English PhD writing in her/his CV that "advanced research skills." Or a science PhD writing in her/his CV technical jargons that only about 3,000 people in the whole world understand. It takes time for them to learn what goes on in the labour market.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by clungemagnet
I am not a lecturer, but just observing (not in a bad way) what my lecturers do day to day (and I go to one of the finest institutions!), I can't help but notice that what they do all day is office politics, relationship management if you will. There is no pure research or something like that. And they are terrified of losing their jobs!
Also a few are very left-wing. My politics is quite the opposite. This could damage relations with a Phd tutor. I find the lefties take rejection of their politics very personally and take it out on people.
I think it highly depends on what the PhD is in and whether the skills are transferable. It also will have a lot to do with pride - I don't think people with a PhD should expect to be paid more than a new graduate, or expect special treatment in terms of employment. People with doctorates by enlarge will not be any more desirable than people who don't because their research will have been very specific - the only things in their favour are experience and the fact they've shown a certain tenacity and dedication. These things won't neccessarily get you paid more!
If you're doing your PhD in a non competitive subject to get a non academic job, you're doing it wrong.
Most here seem to have such a generous view on society and the labour market in general. This world is a lot harsher than you think it is.
Some people learn this the hard way, collecting job seekers allowance after their PhDs and the job centre assistants who can only say that there are cashier job openings in Asda (and the job centre people are right!). There are people with a Master's degree who can't even get a decent job and become depressed and wonder how long he/she can take it. You might think they are the minority, but they are more common than you think.
Some get lucky and they get picked up by MNEs while they are still in university, but they are the minority.
Some people learn this the hard way, collecting job seekers allowance after their PhDs and the job centre assistants who can only say that there are cashier job openings in Asda (and the job centre people are right!). There are people with a Master's degree who can't even get a decent job and become depressed and wonder how long he/she can take it. You might think they are the minority, but they are more common than you think.
Some get lucky and they get picked up by MNEs while they are still in university, but they are the minority.
Anyway, people should never do a PhD because they think it will boost their employment prospects, or because the only job they are interested in is to be a professor. This is rarely a realistic goal! If you go into a PhD knowing this, and carry on because you love the subject, then good for you.
Original post by V.K
This is the worst troll attempt of all time. Even his new made up account pg_maths can't salvage it. 0/10.
You seriously have no idea what goes on in this world. I mean this in the nicest possible way.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Are PhDs worth it?
- What are your feelings about finishing uni?
- How are we going to save Linguistics and MFL at uni level?
- Can I get universal credit/income support if my partner is doing a PhD
- uni students... ask me anything
- If a student loan is wiped, does that affect entitlement to future student loans?
- My friend is never happy for my success and delusional about his own
- HNC science
- Christmas is RUINED News Compilation thread Mk II
- Electrcity Help
- OCR A physics question
- Has anyone met someone from TSR in person?
- Feeling so down about graduating and leaving university
- Jack Grealish loves alcohol and women
- Car thefts Birmingham
- Electro acoustic guitar 🎸
- Sainsbury's and some Tesco deliveries cancelled over technical issues
- Units help
- A Level Physics OCR A Paper 2 unofficial mark scheme
- Multisum circuit
Latest
Trending
Last reply 13 hours ago
MSc Computer Science (conversion course) 2024-2025Last reply 14 hours ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 1 week ago
University of Edinburgh 2024-25 Postgraduate ApplicantsLast reply 1 week ago
MPhil in Basic and Translational Neuroscience at Uni of CambridgeLast reply 2 weeks ago
Cambridge University MPhil in Management (2024-2025)Trending
Last reply 13 hours ago
MSc Computer Science (conversion course) 2024-2025Last reply 14 hours ago
UCL (University College London) Postgraduate Applicants 2024-25Last reply 1 week ago
University of Edinburgh 2024-25 Postgraduate ApplicantsLast reply 1 week ago
MPhil in Basic and Translational Neuroscience at Uni of CambridgeLast reply 2 weeks ago
Cambridge University MPhil in Management (2024-2025)
