OPINION

Why Pursuing a Ph.D. Is a Risky Business

During the past few years, we have seen many articles about what is typically labeled the "Ph.D. glut." Major professional organizations have described high rates of underemployment -- if not unemployment -- for new Ph.D.'s in almost all fields. Leaders in industry, academe, and government have called for a reduction in the number or size of doctoral programs.

Although data from the National Science Foundation and other sources indicate that the actual unemployment rate of Ph.D.'s in the sciences, engineering, and humanities may be less than 2 per cent, surveys by some professional societies indicate that many Ph.D.'s are having difficulty finding the jobs they want, particularly if they want tenure-track positions at research universities.

Some academics and policy makers believe that, given the current job market, it is immoral and exploitative to encourage students to enter doctoral programs. They paint a picture of unscrupulous faculty members who, to secure cheap teaching and research assistants, entice bright but naive undergraduates into lengthy graduate training and imply that they will be able to get jobs just like those the faculty members have. Because most students don't get such jobs, some new Ph.D.'s -- and their defenders -- then feel that they have been misled or deceived.

Although concern about the academic job market in the arts, humanities, and social sciences has been prevalent for years, public attention rose dramatically in the mid-1990s, when, for the first time since the early 1970s, newly graduated scientists and engineers also began to encounter difficulties finding research-related jobs, in industry as well as academe.

A quote in The Chronicle last spring from a doctoral candidate anxiously seeking an academic job captured the essence of students' complaints: "There were supposed to be all of these retirements and turnover, but there is a whole generation now that's been deceived." The letters to the editor that followed were responsive to that theme: "... she is an individual who was seduced into participation in an increasingly nasty 'industry'"; "... an indictment of higher education and its managers ..."; and "... the ethical failure of graduate programs ... that continue engorging the academic meat market with surplus Ph.D.'s."

Are graduate students really helpless pawns being ill-used and exploited by an uncaring establishment?

Sam Rayburn, legendary Speaker of the House of Representatives in the 1940s and '50s, was once quoted as saying that the three most important words in Washington were, "Wait a minute!" I want to echo those words, because several things about this picture bother me. One is the implication that students are somehow being lured into graduate school against their will or better judgment. For years, critics have questioned the wisdom of pursuing a Ph.D., believing that people smart enough to go to graduate school could do a number of other things that might be more profitable. Taking six, eight, or even more years to get a Ph.D. could be considered economically irrational, but students still chose to make that decision, despite the tales of Ph.D.'s driving cabs.

Most students entering Ph.D. programs do so because they are intensely interested in specific fields of study and hope to find careers in those fields. Job prospects in some fields have never been very good, but graduate schools typically have not tried to prevent students from enrolling in programs that might not lead to jobs. The idea of developing some method to relate enrollments in graduate programs to projections of supply and demand in the job market runs counter to the American value of free choice. Today, the public-policy issue often is framed not in terms of jobs, but rather as who pays for graduate education. Some graduate programs have lost public or institutional support when the job market for their graduates has been particularly bleak. But some programs in fields with dismal job prospects continue to exist, and some students continue to seek them out.

It also is not surprising that faculty members describe the joys of "the life of the mind" in glowing terms and try to steer promising students toward it. Many faculty members enjoy that life; they are involved with interesting problems and interact with interesting people. For the most part, they are deeply committed to their scholarly work, and they are eager to share it. And many programs in science and engineering, in particular, have tried to recruit minority-group and female undergraduates. But, as far as I know, no one is being forced to study for the Ph.D.

I don't understand why critics seem to believe that doctoral education has different obligations to its students than professional programs do. Why are graduate schools somehow morally responsible for insuring that graduates get the jobs of their choice? I know of no other field where this is the case. It doesn't happen with physicians or lawyers, many of whom don't get the residencies or clerkships that they want, and many of whom ultimately find themselves in jobs far removed from their training and very different from those they expected to hold.

A number of critics have been shocked and amazed to learn that the state of the job market does not play a greater role in influencing departments' decisions about how many doctoral students to admit. In part, this is because attempts to predict job openings five or more years into the future have failed dismally. The world we live in is characterized not by stability, but rather by rapid and unpredictable change -- social, political, economic, scientific, and technological. In the late 1980s, some of the most respected observers of higher education predicted high demand for faculty members and for scientists and engineers by the mid- to late 1990s. Things didn't turn out that way. The demise of the Soviet Union, the decision not to proceed with the superconducting supercollider, the economic recession that occurred in the early 1990s, and a variety of other factors led to constrictions of the traditional job markets (academe, industry) for Ph.D.'s.

Recently, first-year graduate enrollment in some fields, including physics and engineering, has declined. Some of this decline may be because of a good market for holders of bachelor's degrees -- for example, in engineering -- but some undoubtedly is reaction to the unremitting publicity about the lack of jobs for Ph.D.'s. Several universities have reduced the size and altered the structure of their doctoral programs, in part because of the publicity about an oversupply of Ph.D.'s, but also to provide a better and more supportive environment to smaller numbers of highly qualified students.

For example, some institutions are providing students with internships in industry; involving students in a broader range of research activities; creating more interdisciplinary options in graduate programs; and assuring continuity of financial support. Universities also are paying more attention to advising and counseling students: for example, helping them to identify "transferable skills," prepare resumes, and improve their communication skills. These and related activities should help to decrease the time students spend earning the degree, increase completion rates, and generally improve the quality of the graduate experience.

All of this is good, but some faculty members, in effect, undercut these efforts by continuing to lead their doctoral students to believe that unless they find tenure-track positions at research universities, they are second-rate at best, if not outright failures. It is difficult to overstate the damage that this academic chauvinism causes.

Depending on how they are defined, research universities make up only about 3 to 5 per cent of the higher-education institutions in the United States. Never -- at least, not within the memory of many of today's professors and administrators -- have most Ph.D.'s got jobs in research universities. Over all, about half of those who earn Ph.D.'s are employed somewhere in academe. In fields such as chemistry and engineering, most Ph.D.'s traditionally have gone into industry. Many social scientists typically seek government jobs or work in the private sector.

Of course, many people with Ph.D.'s find themselves in jobs that are not related to their graduate programs. Doctoral education in the United States should give students skills that can be used in a variety of settings. It is not a mistake to urge students to pursue the Ph.D. or to become intensely involved in scholarly research, but it is a dreadful mistake to convince them that doctoral education is a waste of their time if they don't become scholars -- that it restricts, rather than expands, their options.

Pursuing the Ph.D. has always been a risky business. Students may not be accepted by the graduate program of their choice, may not get financial support, may not complete their programs, and may not get the jobs they want. Sometimes everything works out, sometimes it doesn't. Most students are active in research and scholarship while they are in graduate school. For some, this may be their only opportunity to do such work. For others, graduate school will be a prelude to a career in research and perhaps teaching. In any case, they will have spent part of their lives doing what interests them most. And they will have helped produce the information and knowledge upon which this country will build its economic, intellectual, and scientific future.

Students have to decide for themselves if they believe that doctoral education is a good investment of their funds and their time. If they do, they will go to graduate school. If they don't, they will do something else. In either case, the decision is theirs.

Jules B. LaPidus is president of the Council of Graduate Schools.