As a newly graduating PhD with a K12 teaching credential, I can attest that there are not many jobs for new PhDs outside of academia. I am looking in all sectors except consulting, but I'm not qualified as a consultant. My only interview so far has been with a non-profit, where I was one of hundreds of applicants. The few ecology-related government jobs that came up this year (for PhDs) also had hundreds of applicants. I've maintained my teaching credential in case I need to return to teaching high school, but most school districts within the state have been under a hiring freeze or are laying off staff, even in science and math.
With most of these jobs, one must pick between "good" or "rewarding". Starting salaries for K12 teachers is about $35k-$45k in California and it is an incredibly difficult job. I truly love my PhD work and I would like to continue doing research. It's challenging and rewarding, and I believe it has real benefit to society. However the bleak prospects in this field have been discouraging to say the least. Thank you to those who are participating in this discussion. I would love to see this discussion posted more publicly, perhaps a blog with open commenting, because our colleagues in other fields are all struggling with these same issues. The broader academic community might benefit by sharing our thoughts and ideas on this problem. -Anne On Mon Feb 10 06:00:50 2014, Judith S. Weis wrote: > The existence of many good and rewarding jobs outside academia - in > federal agencies (EPA, NOAA, FWS, USGS, FDA etc.) as well as in state > agencies, the private sector (e.g. consulting firms) and non-profits > (environmental groups) or for those who love teaching, teaching in K-12 > seems to be ignored in this discussion. > > > >> If we agree that jobs for ecologists are resource limited, and >> If we agree that resources are not increasing, >> then it follows that ecologists who wish to produce intellectual offspring >> (MS and PhD) should produce such offspring in a way that maximizes the >> probability that they will be represented in the next generation's career >> 'gene pool'. >> >> If ecologists believe the current job market is competitive, they should >> reproduce like albatrosses, maximizing their investment in a very few >> highly competitive offspring with a wide array of attractive skills >> (K-slection). >> If they believe the current job market is essentially a crap shoot, then >> they should spawn like salmon, investing little or nothing, with >> subsequent >> massive mortality, and only a few offspring surviving (r-selection) >> >> The present situation seems to be more salmonid in an albatross >> environment >> with considerable human carnage. What can be done? >> >> Individuals can look into other fields but that means giving up a dream >> and >> acquiring more debt if they go back to school to retrain. If they stay, >> they risk remaining on the outside of academic/professional leks, >> opportunistically exploiting irregular and marginal rewards. They can >> teach, becoming contingent faculty, a growing national scandal where >> untenured faculty with precarious teaching positions may rely on food >> stamps to get by. If they have a large debt from student loans, they will >> end up taking just about any job that allows them to make their monthly >> repayments. >> >> The long term solution is a ZPG for ecologists: professors should >> essentially only reproduce themselves. Some may reply that they need >> 'excess' grad students as teaching assistants. In reality these positions >> could be filled and better taught by what are now contingent faculty. Make >> these better paid, give them a heavier load than one or two classes a >> semester and provide five-year contracts that would give them with more >> security. Faculty should not admit grad students unless they can be fully >> supported by fellowships. >> >> With fewer degrees each year, agencies might consider increasing the >> number >> of independent post docs that are long enough to be useful (5 years?) to >> allow people to develop. Funders should be prepared, if they fund projects >> with interns, to fund them at a living wage. Funding agencies should also >> support programs that support those in overcrowded fields who wish to >> retrain for teaching or health fields. We make a big point of wanting more >> people to enter the STEM fields, maybe we need to think more about how to >> retain them. >> >> >> >> David Duffy >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:57 AM, David L. McNeely <mcnee...@cox.net> >> wrote: >> >>> ---- Kevin Klein <kkl...@mail.ic.edu> wrote: >>>> I haven't been able to follow the entire thread but one thing I draw >>> from >>>> what I have read is that it is incumbent on those of us who work with >>>> students at all stages in their academic careers to also advise them >>> to >>>> consider the job market in their chosen disciplines. In so doing, >>> they >>>> make more informed decision and they study with eyes open wide on the >>>> possibilities open to them at the next stage in their life and career >>>> journey. Much easier said than done. It reminds me of two PhD >>> markets >>> in >>>> recent years. One, where hundreds of applicants vied for the reported >>> 2 >>> or >>>> 3 job openings that year and second the hundreds of positions open for >>> the >>>> 2 or 3 PhD candidates graduating each year. Hopefully we advise our >>>> students of the job market realities. One place a student might look >>> for >>>> this information can be found here. >>>> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/occupation-finder.htm >>>> >>>> >>> Hmmm.... . I was an academic biologist for 35+ years, after the time >>> spent preparing. I cannot recall a time when there were "hundreds of >>> positions open for 2 or 3 Ph.D. candidates graduating each year." I do >>> recall a good many times when the opposite was true. >>> >>> David McNeely >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit >> Botany >> University of Hawaii >> 3190 Maile Way >> Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA >> 1-808-956-8218 >>
