ChaseDream
搜索
查看: 5201|回复: 5

转一个Economist关于各国PHD数量和就业的文章(有点悲观呀)

[复制链接]
发表于 2010-12-29 21:41:29 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
http://www.economist.com/node/17723223?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Far%2Fmr%2Fdisposableacademic


The disposable academic
Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time Doctoral degrees
ON THE evening before All Saints’ Day in 1517, Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg. In those days a thesis was simply a position one wanted to argue. Luther, an Augustinian friar, asserted that Christians could not buy their way to heaven. Today a doctoral thesis is both an idea and an account of a period of original research. Writing one is the aim of the hundreds of thousands of students who embark on a doctorate of philosophy (PhD) every year.
In most countries a PhD is a basic requirement for a career in academia. It is an introduction to the world of independent research—a kind of intellectual masterpiece, created by an apprentice in close collaboration with a supervisor. The requirements to complete one vary enormously between countries, universities and even subjects. Some students will first have to spend two years working on a master’s degree or diploma. Some will receive a stipend; others will pay their own way. Some PhDs involve only research, some require classes and examinations and some require the student to teach undergraduates. A thesis can be dozens of pages in mathematics, or many hundreds in history. As a result, newly minted PhDs can be as young as their early 20s or world-weary forty-somethings.
One thing many PhD students have in common is dissatisfaction. Some describe their work as “slave labour”. Seven-day weeks, ten-hour days, low pay and uncertain prospects are widespread. You know you are a graduate student, goes one quip, when your office is better decorated than your home and you have a favourite flavour of instant noodle. “It isn’t graduate school itself that is discouraging,” says one student, who confesses to rather enjoying the hunt for free pizza. “What’s discouraging is realising the end point has been yanked out of reach.”
Whining PhD students are nothing new, but there seem to be genuine problems with the system that produces research doctorates (the practical “professional doctorates” in fields such as law, business and medicine have a more obvious value). There is an oversupply of PhDs. Although a doctorate is designed as training for a job in academia, the number of PhD positions is unrelated to the number of job openings. Meanwhile, business leaders complain about shortages of high-level skills, suggesting PhDs are not teaching the right things. The fiercest critics compare research doctorates to Ponzi or pyramid schemes.
Rich pickings
For most of history even a first degree at a university was the privilege of a rich few, and many academic staff did not hold doctorates. But as higher education expanded after the second world war, so did the expectation that lecturers would hold advanced degrees. American universities geared up first: by 1970 America was producing just under a third of the world’s university students and half of its science and technology PhDs (at that time it had only 6% of the global population). Since then America’s annual output of PhDs has doubled, to 64,000.
Other countries are catching up. Between 1998 and 2006 the number of doctorates handed out in all OECD countries grew by 40%, compared with 22% for America. PhD production sped up most dramatically in Mexico, Portugal, Italy and Slovakia. Even Japan, where the number of young people is shrinking, churned out about 46% more PhDs. Part of that growth reflects the expansion of university education outside America. Richard Freeman, a labour economist at Harvard University, says that by 2006 America was enrolling just 12% of the world’s students.
But universities have discovered that PhD students are cheap, highly motivated and disposable labour. With more PhD students they can do more research, and in some countries more teaching, with less money. A graduate assistant at Yale might earn $20,000 a year for nine months of teaching. The average pay of full professors in America was $109,000 in 2009—higher than the average for judges and magistrates.
Indeed, the production of PhDs has far outstripped demand for university lecturers. In a recent book, Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus, an academic and a journalist, report that America produced more than 100,000 doctoral degrees between 2005 and 2009. In the same period there were just 16,000 new professorships. Using PhD students to do much of the undergraduate teaching cuts the number of full-time jobs. Even in Canada, where the output of PhD graduates has grown relatively modestly, universities conferred 4,800 doctorate degrees in 2007 but hired just 2,616 new full-time professors. Only a few fast-developing countries, such as Brazil and China, now seem short of PhDs.
A short course in supply and demand
In research the story is similar. PhD students and contract staff known as “postdocs”, described by one student as “the ugly underbelly of academia”, do much of the research these days. There is a glut of postdocs too. Dr Freeman concluded from pre-2000 data that if American faculty jobs in the life sciences were increasing at 5% a year, just 20% of students would land one. In Canada 80% of postdocs earn $38,600 or less per year before tax—the average salary of a construction worker. The rise of the postdoc has created another obstacle on the way to an academic post. In some areas five years as a postdoc is now a prerequisite for landing a secure full-time job.
These armies of low-paid PhD researchers and postdocs boost universities’, and therefore countries’, research capacity. Yet that is not always a good thing. Brilliant, well-trained minds can go to waste when fashions change. The post-Sputnik era drove the rapid growth in PhD physicists that came to an abrupt halt as the Vietnam war drained the science budget. Brian Schwartz, a professor of physics at the City University of New York, says that in the 1970s as many as 5,000 physicists had to find jobs in other areas.
In America the rise of PhD teachers’ unions reflects the breakdown of an implicit contract between universities and PhD students: crummy pay now for a good academic job later. Student teachers in public universities such as the University of Wisconsin-Madison formed unions as early as the 1960s, but the pace of unionisation has increased recently. Unions are now spreading to private universities; though Yale and Cornell, where university administrators and some faculty argue that PhD students who teach are not workers but apprentices, have resisted union drives. In 2002 New York University was the first private university to recognise a PhD teachers’ union, but stopped negotiating with it three years later.
In some countries, such as Britain and America, poor pay and job prospects are reflected in the number of foreign-born PhD students. Dr Freeman estimates that in 1966 only 23% of science and engineering PhDs in America were awarded to students born outside the country. By 2006 that proportion had increased to 48%. Foreign students tend to tolerate poorer working conditions, and the supply of cheap, brilliant, foreign labour also keeps wages down.
A PhD may offer no financial benefit over a master’s degree. It can even reduce earnings
Proponents of the PhD argue that it is worthwhile even if it does not lead to permanent academic employment. Not every student embarks on a PhD wanting a university career and many move successfully into private-sector jobs in, for instance, industrial research. That is true; but drop-out rates suggest that many students become dispirited. In America only 57% of doctoral students will have a PhD ten years after their first date of enrolment. In the humanities, where most students pay for their own PhDs, the figure is 49%. Worse still, whereas in other subject areas students tend to jump ship in the early years, in the humanities they cling like limpets before eventually falling off. And these students started out as the academic cream of the nation. Research at one American university found that those who finish are no cleverer than those who do not. Poor supervision, bad job prospects or lack of money cause them to run out of steam.
Even graduates who find work outside universities may not fare all that well. PhD courses are so specialised that university careers offices struggle to assist graduates looking for jobs, and supervisors tend to have little interest in students who are leaving academia. One OECD study shows that five years after receiving their degrees, more than 60% of PhDs in Slovakia and more than 45% in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany and Spain were still on temporary contracts. Many were postdocs. About one-third of Austria’s PhD graduates take jobs unrelated to their degrees. In Germany 13% of all PhD graduates end up in lowly occupations. In the Netherlands the proportion is 21%.
A very slim premium

PhD graduates do at least earn more than those with a bachelor’s degree. A study in the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management by Bernard Casey shows that British men with a bachelor’s degree earn 14% more than those who could have gone to university but chose not to. The earnings premium for a PhD is 26%. But the premium for a master’s degree, which can be accomplished in as little as one year, is almost as high, at 23%. In some subjects the premium for a PhD vanishes entirely. PhDs in maths and computing, social sciences and languages earn no more than those with master’s degrees. The premium for a PhD is actually smaller than for a master’s degree in engineering and technology, architecture and education. Only in medicine, other sciences, and business and financial studies is it high enough to be worthwhile. Over all subjects, a PhD commands only a 3% premium over a master’s degree.
Dr Schwartz, the New York physicist, says the skills learned in the course of a PhD can be readily acquired through much shorter courses. Thirty years ago, he says, Wall Street firms realised that some physicists could work out differential equations and recruited them to become “quants”, analysts and traders. Today several short courses offer the advanced maths useful for finance. “A PhD physicist with one course on differential equations is not competitive,” says Dr Schwartz.
Many students say they are pursuing their subject out of love, and that education is an end in itself. Some give little thought to where the qualification might lead. In one study of British PhD graduates, about a third admitted that they were doing their doctorate partly to go on being a student, or put off job hunting. Nearly half of engineering students admitted to this. Scientists can easily get stipends, and therefore drift into doing a PhD. But there are penalties, as well as benefits, to staying at university. Workers with “surplus schooling”—more education than a job requires—are likely to be less satisfied, less productive and more likely to say they are going to leave their jobs.
The interests of universities and tenured academics are misaligned with those of PhD students
Academics tend to regard asking whether a PhD is worthwhile as analogous to wondering whether there is too much art or culture in the world. They believe that knowledge spills from universities into society, making it more productive and healthier. That may well be true; but doing a PhD may still be a bad choice for an individual.
The interests of academics and universities on the one hand and PhD students on the other are not well aligned. The more bright students stay at universities, the better it is for academics. Postgraduate students bring in grants and beef up their supervisors’ publication records. Academics pick bright undergraduate students and groom them as potential graduate students. It isn’t in their interests to turn the smart kids away, at least at the beginning. One female student spoke of being told of glowing opportunities at the outset, but after seven years of hard slog she was fobbed off with a joke about finding a rich husband.
Monica Harris, a professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky, is a rare exception. She believes that too many PhDs are being produced, and has stopped admitting them. But such unilateral academic birth control is rare. One Ivy-League president, asked recently about PhD oversupply, said that if the top universities cut back others will step in to offer them instead.

Noble pursuits
Many of the drawbacks of doing a PhD are well known. Your correspondent was aware of them over a decade ago while she slogged through a largely pointless PhD in theoretical ecology. As Europeans try to harmonise higher education, some institutions are pushing the more structured learning that comes with an American PhD.
The organisations that pay for research have realised that many PhDs find it tough to transfer their skills into the job market. Writing lab reports, giving academic presentations and conducting six-month literature reviews can be surprisingly unhelpful in a world where technical knowledge has to be assimilated quickly and presented simply to a wide audience. Some universities are now offering their PhD students training in soft skills such as communication and teamwork that may be useful in the labour market. In Britain a four-year NewRoutePhD claims to develop just such skills in graduates.
Measurements and incentives might be changed, too. Some university departments and academics regard numbers of PhD graduates as an indicator of success and compete to produce more. For the students, a measure of how quickly those students get a permanent job, and what they earn, would be more useful. Where penalties are levied on academics who allow PhDs to overrun, the number of students who complete rises abruptly, suggesting that students were previously allowed to fester.
Many of those who embark on a PhD are the smartest in their class and will have been the best at everything they have done. They will have amassed awards and prizes. As this year’s new crop of graduate students bounce into their research, few will be willing to accept that the system they are entering could be designed for the benefit of others, that even hard work and brilliance may well not be enough to succeed, and that they would be better off doing something else. They might use their research skills to look harder at the lot of the disposable academic. Someone should write a thesis about that.
 楼主| 发表于 2010-12-29 21:42:08 | 显示全部楼层
One female student spoke of being told of glowing opportunities at the outset, but after seven years of hard slog she was fobbed off with a joke about finding a rich husband.

这句亮了
发表于 2010-12-30 03:11:24 | 显示全部楼层
One reason for this PHD = Poor Hiring Demand syndrome is that the current rewarding system is screwed.  The golden days of treating innovation in industries which produce REAL products are long gone! Wall Street is partially to blame for this unfortunate transition.  Those guys do not need to lift a single brick before robbing all the profits earned by building a skyscraper. It is laughable that a person can still earn a decent earning while his clients are suffering from bad economy. Unless the system is refined and rewards the TRUE pillars of the society, the headache for a PHD to find a job will have no cure.

The human race cannot survive without innovation.  Innovation comes from recognizing a problem in the real world and providing a solution thereto. Putting your hands into other's pocket, even if legal, is not an innovation by any standard.
发表于 2010-12-30 04:48:55 | 显示全部楼层
Here is another article which sheds light on the topic from a different angle:

看看谷歌员工一天是怎样度过的 与在哈佛教书的差别

最近我在想,和在哈佛时的院系工作相比,在Google上班日子到底有多么不同。最大的差别就是,相比之下,我曾在哈佛比较幸运,一周花半个小时做编程相关的事。而在Google,我花费将近(或超过)90%的时间在编写代码。另外,我拖延所耗费的时间和浏览大量“无意义”网站的时间更少了,这大致是因为我更享受工作带来的乐趣。

下面就是我在Google典型一天的过程:

6:30 - 起床、把儿子叫起床、洗漱、早餐、带狗遛公园。

8:30 - 去上班(大多数时间是乘地铁)。

9:00 - 到公司。输入6个不同的窗口密码,让我的工作场所返回正常状态。检查邮件。检查我在不同数据中心的几个部署任务的状态,然后接着昨天的工作。

9:30 - 10:15 - 开始编码,给我所在的系统增加请求的功能。一直调试,直至正常运作,编写一到两个单元测试。处理代码变动列表。去拿当日的三瓶免费的无糖可乐。

10:15 - 11:00 - 转到另外一个项目Git分支。查看同事给我所写代码的Review评论。仔细检查代码,并着手处理评论中所提问题。构建新版本,重新测试,重新修改代码,以确保代码看起来和运作都不错。提交修改后的变动列表,回应评论。

11:00 - 11:30 - 再次切换Git分支。安全起见,重构代码,然后启动一个需运行三小时的MapReduce任务,生成日志数据,来分析网络延迟。

11:30 - 12:00 - 和在山景城的团队成员开快速的视频会议。

12:00 - 12:35 - 在餐厅品尝免费的美味午餐。和同事一起逗乐,分享我在中学时破解 Apple IIgs的故事。

12:35 - 14:00 - 返回办公桌。检查邮件。检查MapReduce的工作状态 - 基本完成一大半。回应上午已完成的代码Review的最新评论,然后提交代码。合并并清理Git分支。查看任务列表,决定接下来做什么事。

14:00 - 15:00 - 和在剑桥、山景城和其他地方的团队开视频项目会议。这个会议是我一周之内唯一时长一小时的会议。这段时间比较有趣,我用来对笔记本做些小检查,点击“重载”MapReduce的状态页面,查看是否已经完成。检查Buzz,并匿名发布一到两条评论。

15:00 - 16:00 - 灌点红牛,保持能量,继续奋战剩余时间。MapReduce已经完成。生成(MapReduce的)结果数据图,并仔细凝视观察一会。分析结果为什么和预期结果不一样,并编写新版本代码,来生成另外一套统计数据。在结束当日工作之前,尽可能把代码整理到可以启动另一个MapReduce。

16:00 - 17:00 - Whiskey Thursday!一群同事聚集到一块,喝苏格兰威士忌并弹吉他。(我办公桌下面收集一些苏格兰威士忌。不知怎么的,我被指派为“酒会”的护卫,不过这挺适合我的。)

17:00 - 收拾笔记本,回家。

17:30 - 20:00 - 晚餐,家庭时间直至儿子去睡觉。

20:00直至睡觉 - 如果晚上有事做,就做事。如果没事,就喝些鸡尾酒。



相比之下,我在哈佛典型的一天工作:

6:30 - 起床、把儿子叫起床、洗漱、早餐、带狗遛公园。

8:30 - 去上班(从家走到办公室是20分钟路程,我会带着狗一起去)。

9:00 - 到办公室。检查邮件。抱怨下午会议之前我必须要做的大量工作。

9:15 - 开始写资助申请书。大约三分钟后,我不知道我要写些什么东西,所以接下来的约45分钟时间是在看Engadget、Hacker News和Facebook。

10:00 - 尽力迅速从看网站的昏迷状态中恢复过来,尽力在一堆必须写的推荐信中有所进展。幸运的是,这些工作容易,可以借鉴我以前写给其他人的推荐信,大部分是“拷贝粘贴”的工作。

11:00 - 查看日历,发现我仅剩一个小时来完成实质性的工作。回复一些在我收件箱呆了几周的邮件。给助手发邮件,安排下周的三次以上的会议。

11:30 - 起草一份预算,给不同的支持人员发送三封邮件,尽力在资助申请书方面有所进展。给申请书取一个标题和全额预算,使其听起来合理。不过仍然还不知道项目内容会是什么样的。

12:00 - 带着狗狗,在校园溜达20分钟。如果遇到其他狗狗,花的时间会更多些。

12:30 - 跑到法学院餐厅,打超贵又不怎么好吃的午饭。回到办公室一个人郁郁寡欢地吃,边吃边看Engadget和Hacker News。

13:00 - 当日的第一个会议,和随机来自台湾公司的随机人员开会。他们并没有给我任何费用,但却想让我花费半个小时时间,来超详细地解释我给他们做的研究项目。

13:30 - 当日的第二个会议,和一位二年级的学生开。他突然决定,在漫无目的的四年大学生活后,他想去伯克利或麻省理工攻读哲学博士。虽然我解释说,没有相关研究记录,不大可能有机会了,但他最后请求我无论如何要写一封推荐信。(于是)狡黠地留意可以借鉴哪些推荐信。

14:00 - 想到不得不做半个小时的讲课。(于是)找出去年的讲课笔记,把幻灯片标题中的“2009”改成“2010”。大概浏览一下,虽然想起来这个讲课完全是个灾难,但我并没有时间来修正了。

14:30 - 16:00 - 向大约70名又困又烦的本科生讲了缓存算法。为了让讲课更加令人兴奋,我用了大量的PPT动画,也用激光笔狂热地做手势。在回答大量问题后,让我想起来,这个幻灯片去年为什么是灾难了,发誓一定要在来年再次使用这个幻灯片之前要修改它。

16:00 - 16:10 - 关门躲在办公室,尽力平静心情,平复在讲课过程中飙升的肾上/腺。狂灌可乐来补充能力和水分。

16:10 - 16:20 - 查看邮件;浏览Engadget;查看Facebook。

16:30 - 17:00 - 当日的最后一次会议,和两位研究生讨论所剩时间不到一周就要提交的论文。尽管他们没有大纲和结果,但他们非常乐观,相信能及时完成。我在白板上花约半个小时概述思想和可能的图表,他们则在笔记本上龙飞凤舞地记录。许下一个模糊的承诺,如果本周我可以看到草稿,我可以检查。

17:00 - 带着狗狗走路回家。这是一天中最爽的时候。

17:30 - 回到家,立刻坐下来查看我在演讲和会议中积累的大量邮件。给我助手发送五个新的会议请求,让他在下周安排好。

17:45 - 20:00 - 家庭时间,晚餐。

20:00 - 通过查看邮件和修改我下周要用到的幻灯片,来假装“工作”。由于太累,啥正事也干不了了,喝点酒,然后再次浏览Engadget网站。

编者后话

也许你看过此文后,会觉得哈佛教授的一天工作时间怎么有点懒散,其实原文评论中也有类似疑问,Matt在回复中解释说,这是他个人不善于时间管理,并非所有哈佛同事都和他一样。
发表于 2010-12-30 14:40:21 | 显示全部楼层
Free pizza.  real story.... haha
发表于 2020-1-9 14:33:41 | 显示全部楼层
看一下!               
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|Archiver|ChaseDream京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

GMT+8, 2020-9-21 02:21 , Processed in 0.121487 second(s), 8 queries , Memcache On.

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2020 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部