Geoff,

I, like you, am certain this is a GOOD thing. At last, graduate students are getting a more realistic perspective of the pluses and minuses of an academic career, and they are rationally weighing their options. I do remember from my days as a graduate student at Stanford that a common refrain heard by graduate students (spoken out of earshot of their advisors) was that they wanted to remain in science but "did not want their advisor's life." This study shows that this perspective is still present.

It is ironic that this study suggests that the turn-off about the academic life is a bad thing. Why do the authors (and the establishment in general) still feel that academia is the BEST place that science-trained individuals should be? Certainly, some should go on and be tomorrow's professors. But don't we also want the best and brightest science-trained individuals to be tomorrow's politicians, entrepreneurs, lawyers and businesspeople? Especially given this current economic crisis: don't we want more science-trained people directly working on emerging technologies for a new economy? Why does the establishment persist in believing that the role the “best and brightest” should play is in teaching classes, training graduate students and publishing papers?