The Washington Post ran an article over the weekend,
U.S. pushes for more scientists, but the jobs aren't there, that has sparked quite a bit of discussion - sciencey and political. I'll stay away from politics for a variety of reasons and stick to a more science perspective focused on the latter part of the title.
First off, for those of us on the job market... duh!! We didn't need a headline to tell us this. We know the job market is tough. It seems like many grad students have gotten the message as well.
A group of students at an interview at a highly ranked school asked me why I wanted to come there. I mentioned the great resources - people and facilities. Then I said that I would feel more comfortable training people with a brand name like University X behind them. I have moral dilemmas about training new cohorts of scientists that don't have anywhere to go. Where you were trained and with whom matters in today's competitive market. You need every advantage you can get.
To my surprise, the students were surprised by my answer. 'We've never heard anyone on the faculty talk about this. We, of course, think about it all the time.'
One of my fellow postdocs is purposefully leaving academia, not because he can't hack it, but because he refuses to train students in this context.
So, are faculty really that ambivalent? Are they the slave drivers the Post article makes them out to be - using cheap labor as hands in the lab for the benefit of their own career? I (maybe naively) like to think that they are neither. Faculty benefit from successful students. It is in their own best interest to help their students thrive and land a great job.
Maybe the problem is that training can no longer be focused on academia as an end goal. So many professors are (or seem to be) set on the pursuit of academia is the only option. Of course, the stars will rise and have that option... But with only 14% of PhDs within 5 years of degree landing a faculty position (stats from Post article), students must be prepared for other career tracks. The analytical skills help in this regard, but its not enough.
Heck, grad students at many universities aren't even trained well to be professors - what about personnel management skills, budgeting, grant writing, project management, curriculum development? Essentially, a professor runs a small business and also teaches. To run that business, the prof must 'sell' themselves and their science in grants, presentations, and publications. If you want to get into high impact journals you need to tell a story. The usual summary of literature search, methods, results and dry discussion won't do it. I'm surprised at how few students are taught how to sell their science.
These more 'practical' skills are often overlooked, but can be very translational to other venues -- consulting (project management & budgets), policy ('selling' science), K-12 education (teaching), industry (project management), etc.
Above all, I believe there needs to be a shift in culture from preparing students to become professors to preparing them to contribute to society in multifaceted paths. Once this can be accepted, I think the career development support will come - new networks, translational skills, etc. And with it, the ivory tower may forge new collaborations with policy makers, industry, government, education sectors, and endless other places where society can benefit from scientists.
In the end, I agree that we still need more scientists (... really, more science education). A more science literate population, can only mean more appreciation (and hopefully funding) for science and an increase in innovation. They just probably shouldn't be all PhDs.
