It works like that everywhere outside the UK. Sorry for you guys but that's how it is. If you work in a company 9 to 5 then you get paid 9 to 5. You may work an hour more from time to time but that is usually paid too. I did internships in companies in the netherlands and germany and every biologists I met worked from 8-6 and got paid for exactly that amount. The only exceptions were people in leading positions with a lot of responsibilities. There you can't really stick to fixed hours but in their case it is compensated by a decent amount of money.

Working in the UK sounds really horrible to me...it is definitely not everywhere like this.

No it doesn't. Doesn't work like that in US. Doesn't work like that in Canada. Doesn't work that in Australia. Maybe other European countries are luckier though. Basic employees in companies are different I agree, they usually get paid overtime, but as soon as you hit managerial level, anything goes.

There's nothing in either of those articles I didn't know already, though I enjoyed the pisstaking in the first one. If anything, the Guardian one isn't that good. I pick on the part saying that there are plenty of alternative career paths for Science PhDs. But do those posts actually require a PhD? He misses the point that PhDs actually deter some real world employers.

Just supposing you do land a post-doc, you've an existence of short term contracts ahead of you until you achieve tenure. You cannot make long term plans and the financial situation does not help as regards mortgages and other long term expenses.

I note salaries seem to vary amongst posters. My first post-doc although the better position was poorly paid, however, at that stage it was enough whilst I sorted out my head post-PhD. My second post-doc was well paid, however, a one year contract and it being clear there was no future (personality issues - discussed to oblivion now) still meant forward planning financially was impossible.

Some academics have the attitude that PhDs are a way of having someone running a project with little financial risk (i.e. funding bodies or student self-funding) and post-docs can be offloaded at contract end if their face doesn't fit as there's plenty PhDs coming through to replace them. High supply for a small number of positions means the situaion isn't about to change anytime soon.

The way research "groups" are structured means the senior academic has alot of sway with little recourse if things go wrong and little censorship from the University hierachy. Whilst this may be okay if you have a good man manager, our personality academics can thus virtually do what they like.

There should be balance between PhD positions and what follows, however, the oversupply situation and lack of academic accountability mean the balance of power lies with the University and PhD candidate, or post-doc, is little more than a disposable publication machine.

Ian

Your argument is a little inconsistent. You're saying that you need a PhD to work outside of Academia (i.e. in Industry) for science roles (fair enough) but complaining about post docs/academic jobs, which is in Academia and which has been, over the past few years steadily declining?

So why not leave university and seek a role in industry? How is the university responsible for this particular issue? Is the issue that these industry jobs don't exist, or exist but PhDs aren't landing them? Because then it's not really about academic roles, but rather, roles in Industry which is a separate issue (though connected).

I absolutely agree that universities are churning out more PhDs than what is needed, and part of this is a pressure to pass PhDs that shouldn't have been passed, and recruiting PhDs for workload points (at least here in Australia). I also agree that universities utilise grad students as a form of cheap labour, 100%.

However, the claim about science degrees can only be effective if generally, students earning science PhDs are planning on entering industry for these science roles that require them, but are unable to get them for a variety of reasons like Ian has suggested. If this is the case, you can't really blame a university for producing PhDs for these roles, it's not really the university's responsibility to connect with Industry though I think this would be more helpful for employment prospects. A university is a space for higher learning, but it's not a trades school...I never saw the space as a place for employment prospects.

Your response referred to academic positions, which is not suggestive of one leaving academia, which is where my argument lays about the competitive nature. And regarding postdocs/lecturing roles, it's no different between hard science and social science/arts, you still need PhD for a postdoc or academic role regardless of your discipline.

I think if you're weighing up the employment/salary benefits of academia and PhDs, then they will fall short. The only real 'known' I would argue are trades, like plumbing and electricity. You want to make money? Become a tradie, the tradies here in Australia make a heap of money, a hell of a lot more than what an academic makes (but Australia has a very strong anti-intellectualism culture....).

It's a messed up system, Academia, absolutely. But it's really no different to what others are facing in industry and outside of Academia as chickpea has said. Everywhere has shifted to short term contracts, perm jobs are fading. My partner works in industry and his company has made redundant a heap of people. Because of his specialised IT skill set he hasn't been, but it's not a pleasant atmosphere.

The system will crumble. In the meantime, I would look into Industry roles if you're concerned about academic jobs. I know Ian (Mackam-Beefy) left Academia for industry, and others have done the same. I'm still in academia right now but I'm keeping my eye on what's needed of me for industry roles, in particular applied social research.

I agree 100% about being grateful. I also agree with your earlier statement that you'll be happy at the end of the day you did a PhD. I am happy, I'm ecstatic that in less than a few weeks I'll be walking across that stage with a silly hat on my head. I don't care about whether or not it impacts my employment opportunities. I'll find a way to make it work for me. I did something I had wanted to do for years, and I proved to myself that I could do it. I was exactly like you, unsure about whether or not I would get the PhD, and when I found out I had passed, I bawled my eyes out (it was strangely overwhelming!).

Congrats awsoci! That's really exciting… 3.5 years ago I finished my PhD and I was very happy that I achieved what I always dreamt! As for postdoc… I am not sure what fields you are working but in chemistry (my field) you really need a lab to work and unfortunately there are not many of them out there… so the university becomes one of the very few places that you can work… and unlike some social sciences (i.e. finance, economy, anthropology, etc) where you can just walk to a pub and make a very interesting conversation with locals, my field bores hell out of them so I usually hide the fact that I have a PhD! :)…. But I think the PhD and postdoc problem is also extended to down under (read the transcripts if you cannot open it):

Australian Postdocs in Asia - Part 1

On yeah I totally agree with that article. It's no better here in Australia.

They say that degrees in social sciences are useless but I'm thinking that you have a lot more flexibility with a SS degree than a hard science one. As they said, once the technology dies down you're left as a dinosaur..

I don't have a postdoc, I'm in a Teaching & Research position which is a bit different. I have to produce research, but my focus is more teaching related. I do have an honours student which is fun, and the topics I teach are really interesting (well to me!). But I've been lucky in being offered this contract. I have numerous friends who have the PhDs still on sessional contracts...It's rough everywhere.

@ awsoci

Of course a university is not the place to prepare you for industry. I meant that these things can often not be separated and one leads to another. For instance, tons of chemists and biologists end up in sales after their PhD. A position in which a bachelor degree would be more than sufficient. The reason why they nowadays demand a PhD is not that you need it but that there are so many PhDs. Why hire someone with a masters degree if you can have a PhD? As someone mentioned above, if you don't do the job then 20 other post docs waiting in line to take your place. This lowered the salaries over time and made the expertise cheap.
I'm not blaming universities for their mild interest in the industry sector because that should not be their concern. I'm blaming them for lying about perspectives and facilitating an oversupply of PhDs by creating more and more scholarships that are getting cheaper and cheaper. As a PhD student in the Netherlands I would start with 2100€ and would get 2700€ in my last year, while it is 1200€ in Germany for exactly the same job. Obviously some countries manage to restrict this a little bit by paying appropriate salaries. Of course PhD positions would get rarer, but that would probably not be the worst outcome.

I like your positive attitude but one always reads the same stuff "I learned so many things in my PhD, I will make my way". Everybody thinks like this, but obviously it is not true. These berklee students are not afraid that they won't work in academia but afraid that they just work nowhere (I mean of course field related. You can probably always work in retail or a diner ;) ).

But I probably agree with you that it gets worse in many job sectors at the moment :/

Many profs recruit masters and PhD students to justify their own existance in the system. It used to be that each prof produced a handful of PhD's thoroughout his/her career and publish few good papers every now and then when they really had somethings to publish. Nowadays things are a bit different with publish or perish culture, H-index, impact factors and RG scores, they are all trapped in their own rate race. I know some assistant or junior associate profs at third tier ranking universities in their early 40's that have already prouced 10-12 Phds and published 100+ journal papers... Most of the research they do is to reconfirm things that are already known.... There is not really much of discoveries happening these days....Most of the scientific research done these days are either corporate science or some intellactual masterbation...

I think there is a difference in thinking like this and doing something about it. I hope the difference is that if you take advantage of the opportunities that you will you be rewarded.

For example, even though I am not getting paid this year and it might be sensible to write my thesis as quickly as possible, I have still submitted a paper and presented at conferences. I am still trying to get some additional results to improve another paper that I am going to write.

I look at some of the other PhD students in my lab, some of whom are being paid in their 4th year, and they went to conferences but didn't bother to present something, and they haven't bothered to write up their results into a paper. Then they complain that they don't get offered interviews.

Time will tell I guess.