How many PhDs does the world need? Doctoral graduates vastly outnumber jobs in academia

Yup. Me too.

Exactly, I went for my PhD because of interest in science and my subject. Never really wanted a job in academia and I am happily employed in the private sector now.

We should return to praising science and knowledge for its own sake (and the betterment of mankind) rather than seeing it only as a means to a better paycheck and/or corporate profit.

This is me. Grad school was about interest not work.

I took some college courses, backpacked and lived for a short while in Vietnam and tried to find myself and what I want to pursue in the future. Or just have a one man consultancy company. You worked freelance.

"Can you explain this 6 year gap on your CV?"

My relevant experience is in the last 10-years, unless I go further back, and then the experience is irrelevant due to age.

Who is making you put it on your CV?

OP didn't touch on a major issue for PhD holders: over qualification. I'm a good example, even not having earned a degree. Can't get a low-level IT job because my experience is too much. Nobody wants to hire somebody that's able and likely to jump ship at the first opportunity.

That’s all swell but you know what?

It isn’t about what the world needs.

If you have the desire, ability and opportunity to get a PhD in accounting then that’s what you should do.

Everything else is equivalent to someone telling you that, “the world needs ditch diggers, too.”.

Fuck people like that. Let them forgo their passion in life, not you.

also: PhD's are often funded positions where the student receives a stipend - not something where significant tuition is paid (not always, of course). Master's degrees can cost a bundle, but not every PhD program requires a Master's beforehand. The biggest loss (again, not every case) is in loss of income that would have been gained if one had immediately entered the workforce after BS or MS.

There are companies, big companies even, that kill off underperforming projects after less than a year, and most don't take years to agree projects.

The working world is very different from the laid back, very slow moving world of Academia.

i wished that corporate was moving faster than academia, but its actually even slower and more conservative, spend 5 years getting a project to be finally put on the road-map, start working on-it for 2 years, get it descoped and postponed 2 years latter, then suddently have some manager panicking because we can't meet our contractual commitment *This is what I've been telling for years and why I was hired*, go for a quick and dirty plan-B to have some QA telling you they can't approve the release.

You can do a lot of critic to academia, but it's way faster and more efficient than private corporation

laid back, very slow moving world of Academia.

What kind of Academia are you talking about? You publish or perish, write grants to get projects funded, deliver (questionable) results in unreasonable deadlines or you're out of a grant and therefore on the streets from one day to the next.

Then there's the usual practice that almost all jobs except for the professor's are temporary positions and if the project doesn't get funded, you don't get the desired results (see above) or you clash with someone in the administration that don't like you, you're out of a job when your contract is up for extension. And even if you do a good job, getting a new contract is never a given, therefore stringing temporary contracts together is horrible for your mental health.

When I finally switched from academia to industry because of all that bullshit my new colleagues had to remind me that I no longer have to adhere to these standards, have a permanent position and can relax without working unreasonable hours or unpaid overtime.

The working world is very different from the laid back, very slow moving world of Academia.

Someone who has worked 8 years instead of studying has more experience and is therefore more valuable as a worker than someone with no *experience* even if they have a lot of knowledge and a piece of paper that proves it.

"we just want someone who will take abuse for low pay." - employers

It does sound paradoxal at first but is actually quite logical. The person without a PHD enters the corporate market at a younger age with a lesser degree. He has an easier access because he can get paid less and is more accepting of more menial tasks. PHD candidates are older, expect higher salaries due to their higher education, but actually have less corporate experience. That's why the article is calling for a better preparation to work outside of academia jobs

A PhD is a highly specialized thing, much like how a Masters is fairly specialized. Only a BA/BS is something that is supposed to be relatively universal. If someone has a BS in accounting that is pretty applicable anywhere accounting is needed. If someone has a masters in accounting specializing in taxes or something, then theyre useful to places that need an expert in tax accounting. If someone has a PhD in some specific field of accounting then theyre useful to universities with accounting programs who are trying to crank out accountants at the B/M level, of which there are only so many slots. A PhD doesnt mean someone has more general knowledge, it means they have a ton of very very specific knowledge

Technically that PhD holder would also be useful as an accountant anywhere, but being an accountant just anywhere probably isnt going to pay for that Masters or PhD. So if one decent spot will open in academia this year, but 10 people graduate with PhD’s this year, obviously they cant all have that one spot.

Im not into accounting, so idk how much sense that explanation will make to an actual accountant. But you could change accounting for literally anything and that is basically the problem in a nutshell. Plus many people get PhDs in subjects that dont have such a wide job market at the entry level. If you get a history PhD and dont get an academic slot then you are basically fucked. Being a museum docent or a highschool history teacher isnt gonna pay for that PhD. This is why a lot of my professors in community college back in the day taught as adjuncts at like 3-4 colleges at the same time

PhD overproduction (and subsequently devaluation) is a real thing.

The intention of PhDs was to reward and recognize major original contributions to a specific field of science. It turned into another academic "level" that you have to grind towards by producing a large quantity of articles. Even before AI the academic slop was a real thing.

if you can't do a job after getting a PhD then explain how a person without one can?

I’m getting a PhD because I like to learn and I want to learn all I can about the physical phenomena around me - I would hope we could start thinking of higher education as more than just job training.

The world needs as many highly educated people as possible. The problem becomes when you make higher education a business and attach publication as a requirement for advancement. Then you are diluting the quality of research in pursuit of a "high volume" model. In this model people don't follow passion they follow the path of least resistance and we all suffer for it.

You might notice that not all PhDs work in academic environments. Actually most of them work in businesses.