Both schools I’ve spent time at gave stipends that were more than adequate for students who had no dependents. In fact, I saved money all through grad school and maxed my contributions to an IRA. The only students with debt were the ones with leftover debt from undergrad. Some students even had a nonworking spouse and a child, and still did ok. I wouldn’t have wanted to try that one. Eat cheap and get a roommate, and you can go pretty far on low income, especially when the school is providing health care.
Oh, I did meet one chemist at Emory who was still acquiring more student loans in grad school so that he could play lots of golf.
I wouldn’t say that. Most every chemist who starts grad school has no idea what he or she is doing. The first year or so is spent getting your feet under you. Then you run.
Or you get kicked out.
Or you come to a “mutual understanding” with your PI that perhaps grad school isn’t for you and that you would like to drop out and do something easier like med school.
Ok, so it’s not unheard of to get out of graduate school debt-free, but expecting no debt whatsoever still seems extreme to me. Also it seems like a lot of people who shy away from student loan debt will go run up their credit cards at a moment’s notice. I really don’t see ANY debt so worthwhile as educational debt, and the truth is that student loan companies are often really open to negotiating repayment arrangements when you fall on hard times. (That’s a generalization based on my experience working for a debt counseling agency… you would be stunned the difference one phone call can make.) I would rather have the same moderate standard of living for one decade than live on a shoestring for five years and move into a fancy house for the next five.
The golf thing cracks me up. Totally something I would do (if I were into golf.) I’m willing to bet it vastly improved his quality of life while he was going through grad school.
Then there’s the type of PhD I’m doing - at the other end of the career path. I’ve spent over 30 years working in education, IT, and writing books. My degrees are in engineering, IT, gifted education. We have no debt, child grown and independent, and I’ve gone back to university full time in English as a creative science writer on a scholarship - the same sort of money as mentioned above. It is a different world - every day is fantastic. I am totally obsessed with my topic.
I am very glad I did my education in spurts, and so was able to mix with my career and parenting. So for me, it’s not the final degree which matters, but getting three years funded, with an office and all the resources of the university, as well as the intellectual discourse. I hope to do a decade or so of academia, but then again, I might just keep writing books - or both. So my ‘worth it’ is different to others.
Like monstro said, it probably won’t be a hindrance getting a Ph.D. Most of my professor friends have grants about specific subjects, and most have plenty of ideas for their students to work on. I think some profs would rather have their students work on a pre-existing idea than to have new ones - not mine, though.
The real problem is what about when you get done. If you are going to be doing the same stuff you’d do with a Masters, you’ll probably lose money in the long run.
And I’ve never seen anyone learn to be an idea guy. I think you are born with it. I am one, but it is not all a good thing. If I were stuck in an implementation job, I’d suck at it, since I’d be experimenting even when that’s not a good thing to be doing. 95% of the calls from headhunters I used to get when such things happened were for jobs I’d hate. Count your blessings - you’re probably more employable than I am.
As a biomedical PhD, these numbers are actually low. 4 years for BS, 5-8 (more toward 7, in most cases) for the PhD, and at least another 4 as a postdoc, and usually much more than 4, before anyone would even consider you for a tenure track position. That puts you at AT LEAST 32 years old before you can start applying, but this would be very unusually young. Most 32 year olds are still working on PhD or in their revolving door, holding pattern postdocs.
And then, as mentioned above, the number that actually get tenure track positions is under 10%. There are currently about as many postdocs as there are tenure track professors. So, unless they all retired tomorrow, there is no way to accommodate all of these PhDs in academia.
Yet, when you mention leaving academia, you (and by “you” I mean “I”!) get the speech about how it is awful on the other side in industry where you only work for the money and not the love. As if I joined a convent or something.
Well, I’ve been on the other side now for about five years, and I’m doing better science and am happier than ever. I work normal hours, and am very well paid, and the money to do the science is such that I never have to do a second best type experiment to save cash.
I’m very glad (now) that I got my PhD, but I’m one of the very lucky ones who landed a good job from it. Of all of the people (~50) I started out with, only four of us are both still in science (two very obliquely), and not still postdocs/grad students or quit altogether.
And this (the amount of time required to successfully create a professional identity with one of these things) serves to underscore my point. If you want to get one, you do the work because you love doing the work and you can’t think of anything you’d rather do than put yourself through the emotional and intellectual ringer on behalf of your life’s passion. This isn’t a choice you make one time, it’s a choice you make over and over every day for years, it’s basically your chosen career for a good portion of your life.
I think (and this is just my personal opinion) that those who are unhappiest in graduate school are those who have unreasonable expectations about what the degree will do for them, vs. what they can contribute (or try to contribute) toward the field they are passionate about. IME having to bust your ass and live in stressful life circumstances can easily be rationalized if you have a true passion and commitment to the work. To borrow from Nietzsche, he who has a why to live can bear almost any how.
And yes, I’m an educational idealist, but don’t think for a second it’s based in naivete. I think of education in the same way I might think of a marriage… certainly it has its moments of tedium and repetition and after ten years your spouse might be more of a friend than a red hot lover. But there’s something fundamental about that person, and about who you are when you are with that person, that makes you keep the toilet lid down and cook breakfast and do all those little bullshit things that allow a healthy relationship to endure. The relationship may always be evolving, circumstances changing, but the foundation will endure. Taking on a Ph.D, I think, is a similar level of commitment.
And one I have recently decided I am willing to make. There’s a dual MSW/Ph.D program at the grad school I’ll be starting at this Fall, and I’ll be eligible to submit an application for a Ph.D. once I finish my first semester of courses for the MSW. While it will allow me to pursue the career I desire, it’s not a means to an end. I want to do it because it will probably be one of the most rewarding and pleasurable experiences of my life.
It also generally means, “This guy doesn’t know freakin’ shit,” about any subject other than what he studied. I’ve know a few exceptions but they are uniformly people who went back to grad school after spending several years in industry or the outside world. I have a friend going for a PhD in Comp Sci now, and he’s amazed at the incredible depth of ignorance of his classmates even within field. Of course, he spent several years doing RTES programming on flight control systems and has a wide range of other interests outside his field.
A PhD or SciD is generally an entry card to certain occupations or positions, particularly academic or technical, but it doesn’t convey any particular applied competency even within field. I’d rather hire two BS/MS/MSE engineers than one PhD, 'cause I can train up any decent technical adept in structural analysis, propulsion theory, range trajectory planning, or controls sufficient to do real work and get way more value over one doctorate who only knows how to do theoretical work in his narrow area of specialty.
Sorry, I’m either being whooshed or my irony meter is broken.
I believe that learning is worthwhile for its own sake. I do not hold with the notion that you should go to university to get a better job, or a better salary.
If a person gets a degree in one field and then gets a career in a completely different field, was that degree a waste of time and money? In my opinion, no.
If you want a job, go to vocational school and learn how to weld. If you want to learn, study whatever interests you.
I think it’s completely appropriate to think about the economic value of an advanced degree, because the last time I heard, they were still generally requiring money to purchase food and housing. IME, getting a Master’s is probably the best value for your time.
PhDs are worth it if you are certain that your field of study is what will sustain you through your youngest, sexiest years, because you’re going to spend Friday nights in the basement, finally getting access to that mass spectrometer. And if you go out, you’ll have five dollars and a coupon from Souplantation. Contrast with those Quantum Mechanics who go out in to industry with their BSs, driving cars and eating steaks. (Bonus points if you remember that reference, but double negative bonus points if you still have it hanging on your wall).
Should you go into the private sector, good PhDs will be able to overcome the lack of seniority & quickly move ahead of their cohorts who went in directly after their BSs, but mediocre PhDs will stay mediocre. My company gives three or four years of “effective” seniority to incoming PhDs, and there’s usually an implicit expectation that a faster (income) track is theirs to lose.
**Stranger **has a point, as I’m currently doing a PhD after spending 20 years in industry I do see what he means. I have worked with a number of PhD level “engineers” who knew next to nothing about anything except their chosen subject. One even admitted this was true and described a PhD as knowing a lot about a single grain of sand on a beach.
Having said that I’m really enjoying mine (most of the time) I’m just coming to the end of my first year. It’s in an experimental subject so I’m learning plenty of practical skills as well as academic and as I’m now 39 I’ve already formed my opinions of academia and the world and don’t think it will change me substantially.
Funding is not an issue as I am funded by a UK Research council, which is quite a decent amount of money (for a student) although considerably less than I was bringing home when I was at work.
Post PhD I have no idea what to expect, I can’t really see myself in academia long term as I haven’t got the patience for teaching, but I do like the experimental work. I’ll probably go into industry, in which case I could have probably got to the same level as I will likely achieve simply by staying in employment.
Put simply, if you enjoy it, do it. Otherwise don’t. It does take a lot of staying power and it can be frustrating. But ultimately it may be worth it.