Hmm, on reading the further replies I can see that others have concluded a Plan B (work outside academia) is at least an idea before embarking on a PhD or at least when considering life after PhD whilst still doing it. I myself had to accept a Plan B outside academia when my second post-doc went badly wrong and even then, it was a struggle (one year) to get any employer to take me seriously (I was an academic / overqualified / etc.). This was despite an extensive period outside academia before I did my PhD.

I heard one academic say that someone's work or qualification had a half-life of 2 years before it became an ineffective tool on your CV. I'm not sure of the accuracy of that figure, though I do admit it becomes harder the longer you are outside employment or even a relevant field.

I disagree with the remark that the situation is reverting to that of independently wealthy academics, though anyone reaching academia will face also having to clear student debt from undergraduate years. The government will thus be guaranteed a sizable chunk of it's money back. The funding situation will remain bad for some years, however, if a country is to have a competitive edge it must invest in research and post-austerity, the situation has to improve. However, that means a substantial portion of a generation of PhD-qualified people will miss out as a new set of people will be studying PhDs and these people will gain priority when the new clutch of research posts finally sees the light of day (i.e. post-2018 in the UK).

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Hi everyone, and thanks so much for all your advice. Wow, it's a really, really depressing picture, isn't it? I'll continue to apply for jobs but I think the heart's gone out of my search now. Ian, that's been my big fear: that by the time there was any kind of positive movement on the jobs front, my qualification would be too old to be of any use to me.

Thanks again, everyone. It's refreshing to get good, honest opinions instead of the university-sponsored "Work really hard, get your PhD, and then come work with us in academia!!" nonsense.

I know of one RA post at a very good UK university that attracted 110 applicants, all of whom were qualified for the position. A similar post in the same department in 2007 attracted 33 applicants. This tells you everything you need to know about the current state of academia in the UK.

The Vitae figures are misleading as they relate (I believe) to first positions post-PhD - 50%+ end up outside academia. What this does not tell you about is the currently unknown level of "churn" further up the tree (i.e. those who, like myself, complete a couple of postdocs and then find the trail goes "cold" and are forced into finding non-academic career paths having spent the previous three to four years dedicated to academic pursuits and having no real clue about the non-academic world, or how to find out about it - which is even more disadvantageous position than being just out of a PhD as you have to more or less take any job that comes along whether you want to or not).

Also note that having a PhD does not make you immune to such things as workfare and patronising and demeaning "helping you find work" schemes run by this disgusting shitstorm of a government.

Tell me about those 'back to work' schemes. I found a non-academic job with literally a couple of weeks to spare before I had to start one. Those things are very much 'one size fits all'.

As regards the trail 'going cold', I think there's a two fold reason for that. Firstly, it's assumed (unless you have sucessive post-docs in the same department due to a long running project) that you auomatically move into a lecturing position after about two or three post-docs. Secondly, there's the situation I mentioned in my previous post where current PhD students are favoured (with post created) within a department in order to finace them through, say, fourth and fifth year write-up.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Maybe not an option for everyone, but I assume you have considered appying for academic jobs in other countries? It's probably tough to break into academia pretty well everywhere right now, but some countries are worse than others- and the UK seems to be one of the worst hit.

Thinking back a few years, elderly parents, both ill, meant looking abroad was not an option. Thus a real world plan B was all that was open to me and even that was difficult (i.e. overqualified).

If you've family, it's not so easy.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

PhD jobs prospects are dire.

My story is probably a little different to most of yours, but I do feel that PhDs across the board are being deceived and let down by the higher education system.

Back in the mid-1990s, I went straight from my BEng degree to a PhD at Edinburgh. At the time Edinburgh was seen as one of the top Scottish universities, so I was immensely pleased and proud to be studying for a doctorate at such a prestigious university. Anyway, my reason for studying for a PhD was simply to gain a doctorate so that I could use the Dr title. I never intended to pursue an academic career. After my PhD, I went into industry for a short time. Found that I hated it (well that particular job anyway) as I didn't have the freedom that I was acustomed to. It felt like working in a call centre! Was made redundant in the 2nd round of redundancies in 2003, so went back to Edinburgh to work as a postdoc on a really short project (no chance of getting any publications from that). After that post doc I went from post-doc to post doc as I liked the work and the relative fredom that we enjoy. It's interesting to note that I'd never heard of fellowships when I was a student as Edinburgh. Only found out about them when I was working quite successfully on a long project at Glasgow (plenty of publications), but by then it was too late for me as I was an 'old' PhD.



Now unemployed for the second time in 3 years. Discovered that employers aren't interested in PhD degree. PhD on CV is probably just as bad as having a paedo conviction. 6 months and only 2 postdoc interviews and 0 industry interviews. Can't even get a job as a GCSE qualified worker. Probably come to the end of the postdoc road. Thinking of dropping PhD from my CV.

Be very careful about removing your PhD from your CV as potential employers can search Google and any traces of your PhD out there will show up. Theses are automatically placed on University repositories and Ethos now; although this can be delayed at the request of the PhD holder, they will eventually be uploaded.

As you gained your PhD in 1999, that gives you more control as it is only recent theses since 2008 that are being uploaded automatically. That is unless someone requests your thesis via Ethos; when such a request happens, your University will provide your paper copy to be scanned and uploaded. Even without the actual thesis, Ethos will show a record of it's existence that can't be removed.

If you do not declare your PhD and it is found, it will depend very much on the individual employer whether they understand your actions or see your concealment of your PhD as dishonesty. Hiding is seen more sympathetically in the UK and Europe (in North America hiding is seen as gross dishonesty), however, be aware that different people will have different views on this issue.

Hiding would have been a possible option pre-2008, but the availability of data electronically makes this more problematic. There was a lenghty debate on Linkedin on this very issue, in the group 'PhD Carreers Outside Academia'.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Having a proven track record of publications will help persuade prospective employers you will help enhance their REF. I have been published, I have plans for other projects and consequently gained a post even before finishing my PhD. Of course it will depend on where you're aiming at.

What a diabolical state of affairs that people feel a need to hide or else apologize for their PhDs. You spend years of your life working under very stressful conditions for next to no money to gain a PhD in the first place. You should always feel proud of having it on a CV. The challenge is to communicate its relevancy. But it's a massive exercise in project and budgetary and time management, if you have to do any fieldwork then you are demonstrating your ability to be a team player (in the horrible jargon of HR) and you have shown massive initiative. If you've done any teaching then you are showing leadership potential, gained in a massive and higly regarded educational organisation. You will have presented work at conferences, which greatly refines your communication skills.

Psychologically, there is a real need for PhD students to be better trained in understanding the continuities between the PhD and postdoctoral experiences and a non academic career route. Yes, the subject matter will be different, as will the organisational culture, but you will be using things developed during the PhD. I would urge anyone with a PhD never to leave it off a CV or else you're selling the experience short. We also need better skills in selling the skills and experiences gained from a PhD outside the academy, and Vitae (which is meant to take a lead on this) isn't doing a very good job of this.

"What a diabolical state of affairs that people feel a need to hide or else apologize for their PhDs. You spend years of your life working under very stressful conditions for next to no money to gain a PhD in the first place. You should always feel proud of having it on a CV."

I agree wholeheartedly! I ended up fighting very hard for mine, and I deeply resent the idea that it's a liability on my CV. But unfortunately it IS a liability. I won't remove it, because I fought so damn hard for it, and I don't dispute for a moment that there's a need to help PhD students understand how to tackle an application for a non-academic post consonant with their level of education. But, truthfully, I don't see that it's going to make us any more employable. I'm lucky enough to have career experience pre-PhD, which includes working in HR, so I'm probably more experienced than many in understanding how to make a CV work hard for a particular position, and I can say categorically that, in my experience, employers simply don't care about transferable skills at the moment. In the current market, they can ask for whatever ridiculously specific previous experience they think will whittle down the number of applicants to a manageable size, and, for non-academic posts, that experience never, ever includes a PhD. As far as academic jobs go, I have as much experience as I could get of postgraduate teaching opportunities, and I'm widely published for someone at my career stage, with a number of (REF-able; I checked) publications due out this year, but academic employers just... don't care. I see post-docs advertised demanding two, three years post-doctoral experience for entry-level work. I just don't know what else a newly qualified PhD can do...

I mean, as things are I would categorically advise someone thinking of studying an academically-focused PhD simply not to bother and go and get some kind of vocational-leaning MA/MSc instead (Marketing, Human Resource Management, Business, whatever).

The types of job that those who have already enrolled in academically-focused PhDs and are too far down the road to really change and do something else are really the graduate schemes for the most part. The ones where the application questions are geared towards people who don't have much work experience but potential. And that's about as good as it's going to get, frankly.

I would also very strongly urge anyone doing an academic PhD to complete a 3-month internship or work experience placement during the PhD (especially if you're a funded student) - and if necessary to do that instead of departmental seminar teaching, the latter of which is a mug's game (it allows the full-time academics to get out of teaching whilst doing absolutely nothing for your career prospects - if academic staff want seminars to be run for their students then they can teach those themselves, quite frankly).

WJ Gibson,

You are taking the North American standpoint that removing your PhD perhaps shouldn't be done. Yes, people work hard for them and yes, they should not feel the need to remove them. I have said above I would now advise against that as traces of all PhDs will now appear on the internet (see my previous posts), an employer checking you work history may find your PhD. As I have said, some emplyers may be understanding (i.e. in the UK and Europe) whilst others see it as dishonesty (especially North America). The situation is more complicated by government employed employment advisors actually suggesting removal as a job finding strategy, most notably in the UK and Spain.

I was advised back in 1993 during Masters that a good, focussed Masters was a better option for the non-academic employment market than a PhD. I would strongly suggest to anyone wanting to enter the general employment market after their post-grad life to be sure that a PhD is the best option without looking at a Masters path first.

When I went into PhD, I went in with five years real world experience yet when circumstances meant I had to leave academia, I found this five years didn't make much difference. Some employers didn't read my CV / resume properly and even thought I was still doing the PhD!!! I rearranged my CV to combat this and to promote the five years real world experience better.

I know people remove their PhD from their CVs and this is a decision that such people make either out or economic necessity or desparation. You cannot live on unemployment benefit for too long when people keep turning you down. I am thus not surprised people decide to take this decision.

Another knock-on effect is on moving on from the job where you concealed your PhD, problems remain as revealing your PhD could create political difficulties with your current employer reference with this withheld information.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

i think doing ur phd part time should resolve any negative connotations linked to it. show the corporate people that u're not confined to theoretical work per se, and it's just a pursuit to enhance one's knowledge as a whole.

I don't see what there is to gain by concealing it, though. Stating "I was a Research Assistant" is hardly going to gain you a load more gold stars than "I completed a PhD". When I started applying outside of the academic world I was advised by one potential employer (who did interview me, along with 6 or 7 others) that the main challenge I would face would be to convince people that I could successfully make the transition from academic to practitioner work. I think that's about the nub of it but it's not an insurmountable problem, even in current circumstances.

Five years "real world" experience pre-PhD isn't going to make any difference at all, it's simply going to look to an employer as though you're just trying to get back to something you left behind in favour of academia if you're just going back into the same thing. I'm very much of the view that you have to put the PhD on there, otherwise it looks like you're hiding something, which in turn then makes it look as though you might have disgraced yourself in some way in the academic world and are simply looking for a refuge, any refuge. If you just start going for the same type of work you did pre-PhD it also makes it look like you learned nothing in the interim, which then suggests absence of ambition to an employer.

An employer is going to look for a convincing narrative - fine, you undertook a PhD, now you want to move to x; you then need to be able to explain why that is and how the PhD is relevant. It can be done because I've done it.

PhDs in the UK could do a lot worse than using www.researchjobfinder.com. Every single one of the jobs advertised there requires research skills.