|
Unselling Graduate School
Dan Monaghan
Professor of Pharmacology
University of Nebraska Medical Center
(printer-friendly
version)
Currently, there is considerable
interest in recruiting graduate students into the biomedical research
area and related sciences. With pressures on faculty to obtain grants
and publish research findings, many faculty and administrators see
graduate students as an important mechanism to increase research
productivity. In such an environment, it is possible to recruit
some students who do not have realistic expectations, sufficient
motivation, or adequate preparation/skills. This would increase
student attrition and waste resources and faculty productivity.
More importantly, it is unfair to the students who were oversold
on graduate school, only to find that it is not appropriate for
them.
In this short paper, I propose that academic
scientists and their administrators work to increase the awareness
of prospective graduate students about the realities of their chosen
career. Increased efforts should be directed at the recruiting of
appropriately motivated and qualified graduate students. Paired
with a more careful selection of graduate students there would need
to be increased recruiting efforts. While most recruiting efforts
are directed at junior and senior undergraduates, increased recruiting
of these students only represents more intense competition for a
limited pool of students. Efforts directed at educating elementary
school and high school students about the opportunities and realities
of research Ph.D. careers, may have greater long-range impact on
training future scientists.
Prospective students should be aware of several
factors:
- Work-effort expectations. The expected
work-effort necessary to complete graduate training in normal
time is very difficult to quantify, but the time input is generally
considered to be well above 40 hours/week. Perhaps 60, perhaps
80. This number is further obscured by the fact that graduate
work is sometimes associated with long, unproductive hours. At
a minimum, students should enter programs knowing faculty expectations.
Apart from the question of the effort that is necessary to accomplish
the Ph.D., is the separate question of how much effort is necessary
to generate the credentials to be competitive for jobs of the
type the student is seeking. The necessary credentials will be
different for different jobs.
- Doctoral training duration. In the
biomedical research field, the average years of graduate training
to reach the Ph.D. is nearing 7 years (6.9 years in 1995, up from
5.7 years in the 1970s)1. At my institution (UNMC), the time to
Ph.D. is approximately 5 years, presumably reflecting the predominance
of research assistantships over teaching assistantships.
- Job market. While the unstated goal
at many institutions appears to be to prepare students to fill
academic positions supervising biomedical research laboratories,
the reality is that most students do not reach this goal. This
leads to the question if students are aware of the different job
markets for biomedical Ph.D.s and if students have accurate expectations.
As surveyed in 1997, 40% of recent Ph.D.s reported entering employment
that differed from their initial objectives upon starting graduate
school2. Students should probably also learn just how competitive
are the different job positions. Presumably, this would screen
for the appropriately motivated (and unrealistic) students and
may give some students further motivation to achieve. In either
case, it may be helpful for graduate student recruiters to know
and to provide student-outcomes information. Currently about 50-55%
of biomedical research Ph.D.s find a position in academia1 and
many of these positions are teaching without significant research.
About 30% of Ph.D.s find jobs in industry, and the remaining occupy
a variety of related niches in government (10%) and other areas1.
Overall, unemployment is very low (1%), and underemployment, or
involuntarily out of field, has been estimated to be about 3%.
While there is significant competition for many individual faculty
jobs, positions have been available for the Ph.D.s generated.
Estimates for the future job market is generally positive but
closely tied to economic recovery and growth3. Other student-outcome
information is available at: www.phd-survey.org/related_sites.htm
- Job preparation. Given that many of
the future jobs for biomedical Ph.D.s are non-academic and/or
non-research, are students being prepared for the jobs they are
likely to seek? What training prepares them for job activities
such as grant writing, teaching preparation, lecture skills, industry
research, budget management, administration, personnel management,
and student mentoring? We appear to largely assume (correctly?)
that if one can do research, one can do anything else. Internship
programs can help close these gaps as well as "survival skills"
workshops and outside speakers from nonacademic professions.
- Postdoctoral training process. Many
incoming graduate students have little awareness of postdoctoral
training. This is becoming more relevant since the average duration
of postdoctoral training has been increasing. In 1981, 24% of
individuals 4 years after being awarded their Ph.D. were still
postdoctoral fellows. This number increased to 32% by 1995. Still,
by 1995, biomedical Ph.D.s, most (about 2/3rd) had a satisfactory
potentially permanent job by their 4th year after receiving their
Ph.D. degree1. Furthermore, since the NIH 1st year postdoctoral
fellowships will soon be at $45,000/year, being a postdoctoral
fellow is not necessarily a hardship. Nevertheless, for a student
to go through roughly 11 years of predoctoral and postdoctoral
training, they should be aware of this process and they had better
enjoy the process.
- Value of School Name Recognition? In
recruiting graduate students to a school of minimal name recognition,
students should ask if getting into a more prestigious school
would increase their career potential. While it may be self-serving
(and minimally researched), I suggest that school name probably
does not meaningfully affect outcome. In one study of students
entering college, students who were accepted to Harvard, but went
elsewhere, did as well as those who went to Harvard4. Bright,
motivated students do well. At the research graduate student level,
the quality of training is more closely related to the quality
of individual mentorship rather than the overall quality of multiple
departments, thus the identity of the institution is less relevant
than the identity of the mentor. And, in turn, the identity of
the student is more critical than the identity of the mentor.
This conclusion is consistent with NIH findings that students
who went to non-NIH training institutions were only about 20%
less likely to obtain an NIH or NSF grant 7 years after receiving
their doctorate5. A greater advantage is seen for students who
received individual predoctoral training grants compared to students
at NIH-training institutions. An evaluation of publications and
citation rate at NIH-training and non-NIH-training institutions
yields similar results. Given that bright, motivated students
do well, the limited disparity between non-NIH and NIH training
institutions speaks well to the recruiting at non-NIH training
institutions.
It is hoped that by better informing incoming
graduate students about the realities of graduate school and the
Ph.D. job market, students with unrealistic ideas or limited motivation
would choose other careers. By taking just those students who are
appropriately motivated and capable, Ph.D. programs would suffer
less attrition, and both students and faculty would waste less time.
(However, it could be argued that a couple years in a Ph.D. training
program are worthwhile to the student even if the student drops-out.
In addition, some students may mature into the role successfully).
With a limited pool of graduate student applicants, such a truth-in-advertising
campaign may even further reduce graduate student applicants. Thus,
to offset this potential decrease, it may be helpful to increase
the pipeline of interested students. From talking with many students,
it appears that there is a huge potential student pool, but that
these students have no idea as to the nature of graduate studies.
I have known students who have graduated in biology, have had many
classes from Ph.D.s and many laboratory sessions with graduate student
teaching assistants, and yet, the students have never entertained
the idea of getting a Ph.D. and they frequently have little idea
as to what it would involve (other than being a T.A.). Direction
on the career path to medical doctor is apparently a birthright;
yet, we have failed to educate our undergraduate students (and younger)
about careers involving Ph.D. training. I suggest that if we in
academics can better inform students of all ages about the nature
of our business, there would be a stronger applicant pool. By making
sure that these recruits have accurate and realistic expectations,
as well as sufficient motivation and talents, academics could be
further strengthened.
Conclusions
Inform students early about the facts and best
estimates regarding graduate school training and Ph.D. careers.
Select highly motivated, talented students who enjoy the process
of research discovery.
End Notes
1. National Research Council. (1996). Survey
of earned doctorates. Washington, DC: NRC.
2. National Science Foundation publication NSF
02-304, Oct. 30, 2001. Employment preferences and outcomes of
recent science and engineering doctorate holders in the labor market.
www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/issuebrf/nsf02304/sib02304.htm
3. Committee on National Needs for Biomedical
and Behavioral Scientists, Education and Career Studies Unit, National
Research Council (2000). Addressing the nation's changing needs
for biomedical and behavioral scientists. National Academy Press.
4. Alan B. Krueger, (April 27, 2000). Children
smart enough to get into elite school may not need to bother, New
York Times, pg. C2.
5. NIH web site. Data from the NIH Consolidated
Grant Applicant File (1995).
|
