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.
(2)
go.nature.com/vh1ewm
No comments:
Post a Comment