CAREER OUTCOMES AND RANKINGS |
|
POST DATE
April 2, 2007, 12 AM
POSTED BY
Peter Fiske
|
|
First of all, Happy April Fool’s Day – I think this day should be a nationally recognized holiday for PhDs, not only because so many of the best April Fool’s jokes have come from the ranks of scientists but also because of the lamentable condition many PhD grads find themselves in from an employment standpoint. But on to the news… “I wonder why top-ranked research universities DON"T track career outcomes for their graduates? Could it be that that information wouldn't make for good advertisement?” Eric posted this rhetorical question last week after Geoff went public with his latest and greatest version of the Grad School Rankings guide. I think this question hits at multiple levels of our discussion so I want to bring it out on stage. About a decade ago I got a most unusual publication for the Geology Department of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. They had tracked down EVERY PhD and Masters graduate back to something like 1955, or tried to, at least. Most of the people from those early years were “whereabouts unknown” – which, in Alaska, isn’t hard. But the department had earnestly tried to contact even those who were not “in the field” anymore, and their profiles were really amazing: an airline pilot, a private investigator, novelist, trapper… it was really eclectic. The publication illustrated something that anyone involved in PhD science education knows: most people who get a PhD eventually leave research science for some other field. It turns out that quite a bit of data is available on where PhDs end up – through the university alumni relations office. While these data are not publically available, if you have permission, you can pull up the best known addresses and latest employers for every PhD grad in a program, going back as far as they have data. University Alumni offices pay close attention to these data – one of the reasons they send out free alumni magazines it to keep track of where you have gone. If you end up quitting that miserable post-doc at NRL and joining a small start-up like, say, Google, they know it and, years later, when you’re a fat juicy alum to hit up for donations, they find you! But, getting directly to Eric’s point: departments don’t track grad student outcomes because: A. they don’t need to (unless they have their own fund-raising efforts – and some do, like my undergraduate Geology Dept. at Princeton University that itself has an endowment that rivals those of many other universities). B. They don’t really want to know what happens to the 80% or so of their graduates who eventually leave research science. Academic departments, like individuals, have personae – visions of themselves that they try to project to the rest of the world. And the typical science department at a R1 university has a vision of itself as a producer of outstanding research and outstanding researchers. Nearly all their income (in the form of research grants) comes from the outside world’s acceptance of this persona. The “institutional reputation” factor that makes up so much of the US News and World Report’s program rankings plays off this issue directly. Would UCLA’s Chemistry Department seem a little less spectacular if it were widely known that more than 50% of its PhDs were working outside of research science after 10 years? Would MIT’s Mechanical Engineering department seem a little MORE impressive if 10% of its graduates end up as CEOs of companies (a higher percentage than Harvard Business School)? Once you start asking this question you immediately start slipping into other intellectual quagmires. What is the “legitimate” employment outcome for a science PhD? What do we really CARE about with respect to outcome data anyway: how many graduate students end up becoming crusty old professors or how many graduates feel their department prepared them well for their future careers? What if every graduate of a program ends up in a high-powered academic job but 75% are miserable and lonely? In the end, the only metric I can rationalize is whether graduates from the program feel the program satisfied their professional needs. PhD programs strenuously insist they are NOT a “professional degree” like those pitiable MBAs and MDs, but rather something higher, more noble and more pure. But in the end, their graduates end up in one profession or another, and the degree to which those alumni feel their PhD experience prepared them well or not should be, in my mind, of great interest to prospective students to that program. |
Peter,
I confess that my rhetorical question was aimed at sparking discussion on a touchy topic. Thank you for approaching it head on.
Your critique of the rationale for why university departments do NOT track career outcomes is accurate. However, it is already widely understood that universities ignore lousy career statistics which make them look bad AND that they use the "rationale" that the PhD is somehow not a professional degree as an excuse to not care. I think it is only Congressional committees who are clueless to the real motives of "senior scientists." As a PhD working in private industry, I most certainly do consider my PhD as a professional degree. Furthermore, even the most idealistic among us still have to pay the power bill and feed children . So doing a PhD "for the hell of it" is not a realistic life option for most people. Universities DO have an obligation to be up front about career outcomes, and they ARE responsible for gearing the PhD training rate to match the job market.
Universities and senior scientists can howl and whine all they want to about how they are not responsible for jobs AFTER the degree, or about how the PhD isn't really career training...just some "intellectual exercise." Real people care about real economic bottom lines. The universities and senior scientists are no different; they are DIRECTLY responsible for the glutted PhD job market. They created a socioeconomic nightmare for junior scientists in order to serve their own short-term economic interests. It is all about cheap, compliant, non-union labor. It is all about maintaining the top-down, almost oligarchical, academic power structure.
While this is selfish and reprehensible, one could argue it is the right of the academic power structure to do whatever it darn well pleases. However, this is not true at all. Academic scientists and the universities employing them, are absolutely dependent on grant funding. They are dependent on the cheap labor of American citizens. They also rely, increasingly so, on a steady supply of indentured servants from overseas. These "special" visa rules which apply only to universities amount to a taxpayer-subsidized handout from the federal government...quite a slap in the face to American scientists already suffering a glutted labor market. As a scientist, it hurts me to say that I don't want academic scientists to get out of their recent NIH funding quagmire. Let them suffer painful contraction...they deserve it. Let's throw in a sudden cut-off of their cheap foreign labor pool. Add in a little backlash from junior scientists and declining American enrollments. Maybe the "profession" could use a perfect storm to clean up its mess.
Eric,
I suspect that part of the reason that we haven't seen ANY real pressure on universities to manage PhD production better from the funding agencies is because the government itself may also feel like it also benefits from the "status quo". As you rightly point out, it is Uncle Sam who is the biggest customer for basic science. Uncle Sam can also be a stingy bastard. Policy makers might believe that a large supply of cheap R&D laborers keeps the cost of innovation (and, by extension, productivity growth) low. What's not to love about that? (note my sarcasm) Just as most Americans want to buy cheap lettuce (which is only possible thanks to the low-cost illegal immigrant labor pool), most policy makers might believe that an education system that produced PhDs in huge volumes would be a good thing. The few who look into the details might realize that something is wrong with this picture.
One anecdote I have that reflects this attitude: I was having a conversation with a Program Manager for the Air Force Research Lab. I was exploring if his (basic R&D) program would support some of the research we were thinking about at our company. He explained quite candidly that he spent most of his program $s at universities because he believed that he got the best "bang for my buck" there. And I surely understand why: when he reviews a budget that includes three graduate students and they only cost $30K *fully loaded* apiece (fully-loaded, for those of you who don't have the pleasure of having to deal with program budgeting etc, refers to loading on of the fringe and indirect costs onto someone's direct salary cost) - it can seem like a pretty darn good deal. Post-docs that only cost $60K fully loaded are, frankly, an even better deal. No surprise that even biotech companies now have a plethora of "poctdoctoral" appointments - they're CHEAP!
I have observed only two arguments that cause policy makers to furrow their brows on this whole issue. The first is the relative production of U.S. citizen PhDs in national-security-relevent disciplines. When Physics employment went in the toilet the last time there was a lot of discussion within the DOD about the supply of domestic technical professionals who could get security clearances. If 50% of your PhD pool is from "sensitive foreign countries" (read: China and India) the supply to fill the nation's weapons labs can get a bit thin. In any case, this argument lasts only as long as they have trouble filling sensitive positions.
The second, perhaps more subtle argument is one of taxpayer waste. If we are spending upwards of $1B at NIH alone to produce PhDs each year the question of whether this is "money well spent" can always be raised. But policy makers have seemed to be reluctant to roll up their sleeves and wade into the actual PhD production process and try to exert any top-down control. For starters, the universities (all of whom have their particular Congressperson on speed dial) raise a hue and cry. Plus, policy makers know that managing complex economic issues like PhD supply by fiat is an invitation for a disaster: better to let the imperfect system continue on its merry way rather than try to do something about it and potentially create a worse problem down the road. It is rare in Washington for people to get fired for their inaction.
My wish is that funding agencies and Congress could insist on better preparation for PhDs. But I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime soon.
Nevertheless, Congress can prod the "establishment" to look at the problem. When Elias Zerhouni testifies, some staffer can give his/her Congressman some pointed questions for the testimony that will cause some (temporary) soul-searching back in Bethesda. Back in the early 1990's there were a few specific PhD-turned-Hill-staffers who were quite effective at turning up the heat on the issue.
Eric,
It's interesting that when it's time to ask for money, the PhD is suddenly a veritable money printing machine, creating new jobs and growing the economy; when pointed questions are raised about the labor market, the PhD is an intellectual exercise, no more linked to monetary concerns than the study of poetry. I agree 100% that the PhD is essentially a professional degree and that universities have some responsibility for the employability of their graduates (but let's not forget that so do the students themselves). I hope that putting outcome data out there will be a small step in prodding some change.
(More on your other comments in the next post.)
Geoff
Peter,
The idea of supplying some good data and questions to a few staffers is a good one. Do you (or any of our readers) have any good AAAS Fellow connections? (flygal, I'm looking at you)
Geoff
Thanks Peter,
You make some excellent and brutally honest points.
I would like to add a 3rd potential argument for policy makers: US science is dependent on a non-renewable resource - foreign labor. I doubt that China and India appreciate the brain drain of their best and brightest to the US, and most of these immigrating scientists have no desire to return to their native countries. They stay here. Unfortunately, American science is relying precariously on a host of temporary phenomena: 1) poor career prospects for foreign-born scientists in their native countries relative to the US; 2) relatively good political relations with the provider countries; and 3) a current climate of welcome openness by American citizens towards lawful immigration policies. Anything could crash this party...quickly. Another terrorist event on US soil would quickly lead to visa crackdowns...particularly if the offenders were found to be on work or student visas. Thanks to a stone age right-wing religious mindset in our current administration, we are seen paradoxically as a nation hostile to science and technology. We are also a decade behind our competitors in stem cell research. China and India are rapidly catching up technologically and will soon be able to offer their own scientists better prospects. There is also the ever-present threat of an international diplomatic crisis between the US and either India or China. It is not so unreasonable to assume that one day we will see these nations as our military and economic competitors. As it stands, our technological success depends on disposable "imports" from our potential world rivals. And, ironically, the downward pressure on job opportunities and wages for American scientists created by mass immigration has been discouraging native-born graduate enrollment for years. We could lose cheap foreign labor overnight. It would take decades to build up a home-grown scientific workforce. That sounds like a national security crisis in the making.