EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey
Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Max_Daniel3
0
0

Interesting, thank you for sharing.

Do you have a take on how accurate the national average estimates are? In particular, I'd be interested in whether they were determined using a different methodology, and so perhaps one that will be biased toward "underreporting". Where as at first glance your methodology might seem to be biased toward "overreporting" (though idk to what extent you may have "corrected" for non-reponse bias, which would be one source of "overreporting").

Reply
See in context
by Xing Shi Cai
3 min read 19

8

Career choice
Frontpage

This article is also posted on my blog.

Update 2021-05-09: Upon checking data more carefully, I have revised the chances of becoming a professor in math.

The joke

A friend sent me an article titled Is Science a Pyramid Scheme? posted on viXra, an e-print archive. The abstract is as follows --

A grievance expressed by some PhD students and Postdocs is that science works like a pyramid scheme: Young scientists are encouraged to invest into building scientific careers although the chances at remaining in science are extremely slim. ... The super-prolific authors at the top of the pyramid ... are usually heads of large institutes with many subgroups and large numbers of PhD students, while the bottom of the pyramid is populated by PhD students and Postdocs ... A new index, the Ponzi factor, is proposed to quantify this phenomenon.

The author of the article is named as Charleeze P. Ponzi, which is also the name of the person who invented Ponzi scheme. Since it is unlikely that the ghost of Ponzi (died in 1949) who wrote the article, perhaps the article is meant to be a joke.

The fact

However, the author does have a point in saying that "the chances at remaining in science are extremely slim". Take mathematics as an example, according to American Mathematical Society's latest annual survey, during the 2017-2018 academic-year

In mathematical and statistical sciences, 1,960 PhDs were awarded by the responding departments ...

Meanwhile, during the same period, 985 tenure-track positions in mathematical science
were offered across USA, among which 775 positions were filled. However, among these positions, only 296 are from departments offering PhD degrees, i.e., from places where you are supposed to do a lot of research besides teaching. And these numbers have been relatively stable for years. Thus, roughly speaking, a math PhD student in USA has at most 40% chance of becoming a tenured professor, but only 15% chance if you also want do a lot of research besides teaching.

15% does not sounds too bad.
But I probably overestimated this number, since PhD of other majors, like myself who studied Computer Science, applies jobs in math departments. And PhD produced in other countries also compete for these positions.

These numbers only applies to USA. It is likely that in less affluent countries there are not as many positions. For example, when I applied a position in Sweden, there were around 40 applicants in total.

Moreover, the situation of the whole field of natural science may be bleaker. By one estimate, about 2.2% German PhD students in natural science become professors.

The conclusion

I used to joke to PhD students that they should strongly recommend their friends to not to do a PhD, because

  1. research is indeed hard;
  2. this reduces competitions they fill in future job market.

However, I do seriously think people should think twice before they apply for PhD positions. They must realise that it is unlikely they will become professors. So, before applying, instead of imagining themselves becoming the next Einstein, people should think very hard about how doing a PhD can help them getting jobs outside the academic. Otherwise, five years of hard work may lead to nowhere and the result can be devastating.

That being said, I think Sweden, where I did my postdoc, makes studying for a PhD less risky. First, in Sweden, university only accepts PhD students whose funding has been guaranteed for fives years. This protects students from running into financial difficulty when they are close to finish line. (When I studied in Canada, a fellow PhD student had to use GoFundMe to support himself during the last year of his study.)

Secondly, PhD students in Sweden earn about 30k SEK (3500 USD) per month, which is not much but enough to have a reasonably comfort life. Thus, for most of students I met in Sweden, graduate school is just a place where they can explore their intellectual interest without worrying about their financial situation. They enjoy their time and they get well-paid industry jobs in the end. For me, that does not seem to be a bad deal at all.

Maybe other countries can learn a bit from Sweden. And maybe you can consider doing a PhD there.

8

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments19


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Xing Shi Cai5
0
0

Have you published your results?

Reply
Abby Babby2
0
0

We are writing up the paper now! We sampled in 2019 and 2020. We used the PHQ9 to measure to depression and the GAD7 to measure anxiety. Happy to answer any questions if you have :)

Reply
Xing Shi Cai1
0
0

Oh, I am going to start advise undergrads on career choices soon. Many of them will want to go to graduate schools. So I would like to give them some cautions. Please let me know when your article comes out. Good luck with publishing it!

Reply
Max_Daniel3
0
0

Interesting, thank you for sharing.

Do you have a take on how accurate the national average estimates are? In particular, I'd be interested in whether they were determined using a different methodology, and so perhaps one that will be biased toward "underreporting". Where as at first glance your methodology might seem to be biased toward "overreporting" (though idk to what extent you may have "corrected" for non-reponse bias, which would be one source of "overreporting").

Reply
Abby Babby4
0
0

The national averages were determined using the same measurement instruments we used, but they did not control for non-respondents the way we did. My intuition is that the national averages are pretty accurate because they had big sample sizes and did not seem to be obviously sampling from a more depressed/anxious segment of the population. 

But you can decide for yourself:  

In a national sample collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (n = 31,366), 8.75% of people in the United States meet the criteria for moderate to severe depression. When restricting the national sample to only those with a college degree or above (n = 6,660), national rates of moderate or severe depression were much lower than what we found in our graduate student sample: 3.8%

In a national sample (n = 5,030), 5.1% of Americans met the criteria for moderate or severe anxiety on the same measure (Löwe et al., 2008).

We controlled for non-responders by keeping track of how many reminders it took subjects to respond to the survey, and checked to see whether the harder it was to get people to respond predicted their depression or anxiety scores. It did not. We also had such a high response rate (30%) that even if all of our non-respondents felt depression or anxiety at rates equal to national averages (unlikely), the graduate students would still be worse off on average. 

Reply
Jakob_J24
0
0

PhDs get a lot of negative hype these days, so much that I wonder if it is potentially underrated it as a viable career step. I am just coming out of a PhD programme in the UK, and while I didn't always enjoy my topic nor want to continue research in my field, I still think it is overall a positive experience. It is important to realize that most people starting PhDs are well aware of the low chances of becoming a professor, but luckily there are still many good career options outside academia (however I do think all the negative hype around academic careers probably means that it is also underrated relative to its true value). Some of the good aspects of (science) PhDs are:

- Lots of flexibility. You are basically guaranteed an income for ~4-5 years that you cannot lose no matter how poorly you do. While your supervisor certainly has some influence over what you do during this time, you are surprisingly free to work on what you want.
- High potential for growth. You get to experience just how difficult it is to become a world expert in something, albeit very niche, because most often you are the first to attempt your line of research. Learning about what has been done before in a field, how to find a viable approach, and how to overcome unexpected setbacks are very transferable skills.
- This is a bit more speculative, but I'd reckon that you have higher chances of landing an intellectually stimulating career with a PhD compared to a Master's degree, at least in fields where credentials matter. I'd also reckon that as a PhD plus a few years experience you are likely to get promoted to leadership positions faster.
- Many fields EAs care about (nuclear security, biosafety, AI etc.) are very science-heavy fields where having a PhD is useful. For example, with a Physics PhD it would be relatively easy to get a job in either of these, since your skillset is sufficiently adaptable to most analytic fields. 

Reply
sapphire18
0
0

It is hard for me to think of much advice that has gone worse for rationalists/EAs on average than 'Get a PHD'.  I know dozens of people in the community who spent at least some time in a PHD program. There is a huge amount of people expressing strong regret. A small number of people think their PHD went ok. Very few people think their PHD was a great and effective idea. Notably, I am only counting people who have already left grad school and had some time to reflect. 

The track record is incredibly bad in the community. The opportunity cost is extremely high. I very strongly urge people to reconsider. 

Another angle is that it is just a very unhealthy environment on average. Here is Ben Kuhn explaining the data:

First I looked for a bigger survey of graduate student depression and anxiety rates. It wasn’t too hard to find one, and the numbers were almost the same: 41% of graduate students had “moderate to severe” anxiety compared to 6% of the general population; 39% had moderate to severe depression compared to 6% of the general public.

Reply
Habryka [Deactivated]11
0
0

Having talked to many people for multiple hours (>100) over the years about their career decisions, I share this assessment. 

Reply
Habryka [Deactivated]25
0
0

To give a bit more context: I've specifically seen some ML PhDs work out fine, but feel like I've seen almost every other type of PhD work out badly, with my sense being that the person was not in a substantially better epistemic or career position after their PhD, especially compared to them having worked an industry job in the direction they would have liked to go into, or just independently writing blogposts. 

More than half of the PhDs I have heard of were aborted in the middle, with the person going through a major depressive period or something similar like it during it, and the levels of regret afterwards being quite high. 

ML PhDs seem somewhat better, in particular at places like CHAI where my sense is that people are working on stuff that's a lot more aligned with their goals. Though I think the track record is still pretty bad.

Reply
Linch12
0
0

For the very specific point made at the beginning, I don't think most scientific fields are pyramid schemes, unless by pyramid scheme you mean anything where there's a lot more people at the bottom than the top and the top is more desirable than the bottom (Like I don't think large companies like Google are pyramid schemes, unless you really stretch the term).  

Words are made by man, but I guess (removing normative judgments) my understanding of a pyramid scheme is a situation where a) many people at the bottom want to be at the top, b)  the success of the people at the top is a direct result of contributions from people at the bottom, and c) most of the incentive for work for people at the bottom is the excess returns at the top.

In that regard, legal pyramid schemes include poker, some arts, and some humanities. Also (more archetypally) multilevel marketing etc. I can also sort of see a case for professional e-sports/gaming, though I think the case is much weaker than for poker. 

In contrast, undergrad education in STEM (eg chemistry or CS) and some of the social sciences is both directly useful and relevant signaling that prepares people for non-academic jobs. Depending on the subfield, this is often true for PhDs as well, though the case for postdocs might be lower.

Reply
Stefan_Schubert7
1
0

Agreed; the problems of academia are not similar to those of a pyramid scheme.

Reply
richard_ngo10
0
0

I suspect 1/3 is a significant overestimate since US universities attract people who did their PhDs all across the world.

Reply
Max_Daniel3
0
0

That's what I thought. I also have a vague sense that depending on one's goals a majority of US tenure track positions may not be great because they are at colleges that do little research and where one predominantly has to do teaching? Or are these not included in the numbers the OP gives / aren't called 'tenure-track positions'? (As is obvious by now I don't understand the US higher education system very well.)

Reply
Xing Shi Cai3
0
0

The survey includes also teaching positions.

Reply
Xing Shi Cai1
0
0

That is true. But since US is already producing so many PhD, I guess it’s unlikely that a very large portion of these positions are filled with foreign produced ones.

Reply
aog9
0
0

Mental health effects are the reason I stopped considering doing a PhD. This might be specific to economics, but here’s one study that surveyed Econ PhD students:

“We find that 18% of graduate students experience moderate or severe symptoms of depression and anxiety — more than three times the population average — and 11% report suicidal ideation in a two-week period. The average PhD student reports greater feelings of loneliness than does the average retired American. Only 26% of Economics students report feeling that their work is useful always or most of the time, compared with 70% of Economics faculty and 63% of the working age population.”

https://scholar.harvard.edu/bolotnyy/publications/graduate-student-mental-health-lessons-american-economics-departments

Then again, a one-in-three chance of tenure after graduation isn’t so bad! (I did an estimate of my own using sources I’ve long since forgotten and came to a similar conclusion for economics — my guess was that 33% to 50% of graduates at top 30 schools get tenure track roles, and most of those end up getting tenure.)

Reply
Elizabeth6
0
0

15% does not sounds too bad.

15% seems to me like very bad odds for a multi-year training program, especially given it doesn't count people who start a PhD program and then drop out.

Reply
EdoArad0
0
0

See also http://www.shouldyouphd.com/

Reply
More from Xing Shi Cai
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This morning I was looking into Switzerland's new animal welfare labelling law. I was going through the list of abuses that are now required to be documented on labels, and one of them made me do a double-take: "Frogs: Leg removal without anaesthesia."  This confused me. Why are we talking about anaesthesia? Shouldn't the frogs be dead before having their legs removed? It turns out the answer is no; standard industry practice is to cut their legs off while they are fully conscious. They remain alive and responsive for up to 15 minutes afterward. As far as I can tell, there are zero welfare regulations in any major producing country. The scientific evidence for frog sentience is robust - they have nociceptors, opioid receptors, demonstrate pain avoidance learning, and show cognitive abilities including spatial mapping and rule-based learning.  It's hard to find data on the scale of this issue, but estimates put the order of magnitude at billions of frogs annually. I could not find any organisations working directly on frog welfare interventions.  Here are the organizations I found that come closest: * Animal Welfare Institute has documented the issue and published reports, but their focus appears more on the ecological impact and population decline rather than welfare reforms * PETA has conducted investigations and released footage, but their approach is typically to advocate for complete elimination of the practice rather than welfare improvements * Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife focus on conservation and sustainability rather than welfare standards This issue seems tractable. There is scientific research on humane euthanasia methods for amphibians, but this research is primarily for laboratory settings rather than commercial operations. The EU imports the majority of traded frog legs through just a few countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam, creating clear policy leverage points. A major retailer (Carrefour) just stopped selling frog legs after welfar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
This is a cross post written by Andy Masley, not me. I found it really interesting and wanted to see what EAs/rationalists thought of his arguments.  This post was inspired by similar posts by Tyler Cowen and Fergus McCullough. My argument is that while most drinkers are unlikely to be harmed by alcohol, alcohol is drastically harming so many people that we should denormalize alcohol and avoid funding the alcohol industry, and the best way to do that is to stop drinking. This post is not meant to be an objective cost-benefit analysis of alcohol. I may be missing hard-to-measure benefits of alcohol for individuals and societies. My goal here is to highlight specific blindspots a lot of people have to the negative impacts of alcohol, which personally convinced me to stop drinking, but I do not want to imply that this is a fully objective analysis. It seems very hard to create a true cost-benefit analysis, so we each have to make decisions about alcohol given limited information. I’ve never had problems with alcohol. It’s been a fun part of my life and my friends’ lives. I never expected to stop drinking or to write this post. Before I read more about it, I thought of alcohol like junk food: something fun that does not harm most people, but that a few people are moderately harmed by. I thought of alcoholism, like overeating junk food, as a problem of personal responsibility: it’s the addict’s job (along with their friends, family, and doctors) to fix it, rather than the job of everyday consumers. Now I think of alcohol more like tobacco: many people use it without harming themselves, but so many people are being drastically harmed by it (especially and disproportionately the most vulnerable people in society) that everyone has a responsibility to denormalize it. You are not likely to be harmed by alcohol. The average drinker probably suffers few if any negative effects. My argument is about how our collective decision to drink affects other people. This post is not
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Today, Forethought and I are releasing an essay series called Better Futures, here.[1] It’s been something like eight years in the making, so I’m pretty happy it’s finally out! It asks: when looking to the future, should we focus on surviving, or on flourishing? In practice at least, future-oriented altruists tend to focus on ensuring we survive (or are not permanently disempowered by some valueless AIs). But maybe we should focus on future flourishing, instead.  Why?  Well, even if we survive, we probably just get a future that’s a small fraction as good as it could have been. We could, instead, try to help guide society to be on track to a truly wonderful future.    That is, I think there’s more at stake when it comes to flourishing than when it comes to survival. So maybe that should be our main focus. The whole essay series is out today. But I’ll post summaries of each essay over the course of the next couple of weeks. And the first episode of Forethought’s video podcast is on the topic, and out now, too. The first essay is Introducing Better Futures: along with the supplement, it gives the basic case for focusing on trying to make the future wonderful, rather than just ensuring we get any ok future at all. It’s based on a simple two-factor model: that the value of the future is the product of our chance of “Surviving” and of the value of the future, if we do Survive, i.e. our “Flourishing”.  (“not-Surviving”, here, means anything that locks us into a near-0 value future in the near-term: extinction from a bio-catastrophe counts but if valueless superintelligence disempowers us without causing human extinction, that counts, too. I think this is how “existential catastrophe” is often used in practice.) The key thought is: maybe we’re closer to the “ceiling” on Survival than we are to the “ceiling” of Flourishing.  Most people (though not everyone) thinks we’re much more likely than not to Survive this century.  Metaculus puts *extinction* risk at about 4
Recent opportunities in Career choice
19
GiveWell is hiring a Head of Finance
GiveWell
· · 1m read
0
0
47
Application for the 2026 Charity Entrepreneurship Programs is Open
Ambitious Impact
· · 7m read
0
0
17
80,000 Hours is hiring for several operations roles
80000_Hours
· · 5m read
0
0
View more