This week’s NATURE has a rather bizarre editorial regarding careers for PhDs (1). The editors acknowledge that currently many individuals with PhDs do not find academic positions, or even positions actually doing research, but rather wind up in a variety jobs that really do not require intensive research training, ranging from high school teaching to investment banking. However, rather than viewing this as a problem in PhD supply-demand economics, the editors chose to put a cheerful spin on the situation and brand all of the ‘alternative careers’ as a good thing.
To my mind the American Society for Cell Biology (2) has a more realistic perspective when it states that in the current context, where less than 10% of enrolled biomedical PhD students will become tenure track faculty, “A faculty job is an ‘alternative’ career”. To be sure NATURE has previously discussed the PhD glut from a more balanced perspective (3). However, the current attempt to view a bad situation through rose-colored glasses is not helpful.
As discussed several times on this blog (4,5) the PhD oversupply is the result of self-interested actions on the part of faculty and university administrators. Cheap labor is needed to keep the grants and publications coming.