The Jobless Ph.D. Generation

by jzila • 13 years ago

86 100 13 years ago

analog313• 13 years ago

When I was finishing my PhD in 1993, I told my advisor that I had received an industry job offer. I also mentioned this at interviews for two academic positions. The response of my advisor, and of interviewers, was along the lines of: "If you've got an industry job offer in this climate, why would you even consider applying for academic jobs?"

Fomite6• 13 years ago

I've met at least two Ecology professors who bring up the idea that, for a population at replacement rate, there's only one new faculty job for each current faculty member's students. One.

I've been in several departments that are very welcoming to industry and non-profits. What they tend not to be welcoming toward is the idea that, because you're not headed to academia, you can either half-ass or rush your research.

ryguytilidie• 13 years ago

I would actually argue that for each current faculty members job, there are <1 jobs, because many of these jobs will be cut completely by next generation.

ChristianMarks7• 13 years ago

Articles like this are almost enough motivation to start a movement that I would call Technologists Against Academia. The premise is that since technologists are generally second-class citizens in academia, they should not support the work and unattainable careers of its first class citizens.

_delirium• 13 years ago

In what sense are technologists second-class citizens in academia? Anything to do with computing is the best part of academia to be in at the moment, from compilers to systems to machine learning to AI. Relatively high salaries, more funding than just about anywhere except physics and medicine, good consulting prospects if you want to do that in addition to or instead of academia, quite a few faculty openings if that's your thing, many full-time researchy industry jobs if that's your thing, etc.

ChristianMarks7• 13 years ago

My reply is elsewhere on this site: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6701769

EDIT: I cannot reply inline to dinkumthinkum's naive mischaracterization of my remarks, and the unhelpful and the misleading question he asks, but my remarks were certainly not confined to "IT admin stuff." They included scientific programming and substantive intellectual contributions to published research. Of course "IT admin stuff" isn't that valued in industry--one of the points was that it is even less so in academia, which is a strong reason to avoid doing it. It is an occupational hazard to take a research position only to be steered into it when one's superiors cannot or choose not to distinguish between "IT admin stuff," scientific programming and substantive contribution to published research.

Fomite6• 13 years ago

Everywhere I've been, good technologists - right alongside good lab managers - are universally well regarded, and many professors I know will insulate their techs jobs from the vagaries of grant funding as best they can. And when labs do hit rocky periods, its usually the techs they worry about the most.

ChristianMarks7• 13 years ago

This has not been my experience.

cryoshon• 13 years ago

Being "well regarded" doesn't pay rent. As a technologist in academia, my largest complaint is that the money is maybe 40% of industry rate.

Sure, if you're good, you get some kind of respect, but respect sans doctorate still won't let you join the "academic" caste as far as the PhDs who tell you what to do are concerned. If you're good, you're considered to be akin to an especially fast and vigorous race horse, not a skilled jockey.

analog313• 13 years ago

An impressive number of Nobel Prizes in Physics are awarded for technologies.

jds375• 13 years ago

Speaking as en ex-physics major and student with their heart previously set on a Ph.D. and academic career, I can relate to the sentiment at the end of this article. Many of my peers (undergraduate and graduate researchers) looked down on non-academic jobs. This is a sentiment that definitely needs to change. It'll make everyone happier.

HarryHirsch3• 13 years ago

This is a weak piece, it overlooks many things.

First, there seems to be the idea that a PhD's place is in academia. Where is this idea even coming from? Back in a different time I got a degree in chemistry in Germany, and the idea was that you would sign up with one if the chemical companies. The degree program was very thorough and broad and lasted five years, and you would start work, be given a mentor, and do anything chemical. Your degree equipped you to do that, it was very broad, if it was chemistry you had heard of it. A PhD was required, chemical technicians would be trained on the job. The lesson here is that a broad degree makes you more employable, but you cannot sell this idea when students have to raise their own funds to pay for their degree and when state and federal funding lines for universities keep shrinking.

But what happened was several things: the great monoliths that in Germany had a standing like Microsoft or Google were broken up and sold off (except the BASF), and the perennial pharmco crisis started.

There is another lesson, I think: deep science requires deep pockets that only a large, established company can provide. Startups are no solution: it seems that the big pharmcos are now turning into brokers that acquire startups, in-house projects aren't done any longer, instead you acquire a startup, and testing is contracted out abroad. Another problem: no one cooks up their own compounds any longer, you contract out to a Chinese contract shop that employs PhDs from China. I'm not sure if this is cheaper or better (there is something to be said for short communication lines - just walk up a floor), but it is current practice.

Also: at my second-tier state school the quality of applicants started really going up after 2009, when the crisis had settled in. To me this means that private jobs have disappeared, and universities aren't hiring much either.

This is an economic problem, and I really can't see how turning universities into trade schools could be helpful to create jobs. Neither do I see how increased reliance on privately-funded research institutes would help - no matter how big their endowment they would still be competing for external funding, the biggest source of which is the NIH. But the NIH keeps getting its funding cut.

There's the other problem: the government isn't funding science as much as it ought to.

ChristianMarks7• 13 years ago

First, there seems the idea that a PhD's place is in academia. Where is this idea even coming from?

It's in the air, in the environment. Perhaps your circumstances are different, but in the US the overproduction of Ph.D.s is sufficient to sustain at least one business: The Versatile Ph.D. http://versatilephd.com/.

The online blogging on the phenomenon is hard to miss.

HarryHirsch3• 13 years ago

(The blog has disappeared. 401 - Authentication required)

Yes, this is this systemic problem in the US. It started with many second-tier schools opening grad schools to compete for NIH and NSF funds, which at that time were freely available. The career path for those graduates would be to go into teaching at other second-tier schools, or at four-year colleges.

But now, after the crisis struck, even top-tier graduates have problems, and they are now being hired by second-tier schools to compete for less external funding. This leaves no way out for the graduates of weaker programs.

Another problem: the quality of the applicants for PhD at second-tier schools. Man, it's awful, it is. Top tier schools are as large as they want to be, and they hire whomever they like. Lesser schools try to make to with the rest that didn't get into the top places, and it's no fun, let me tell you that.

I can't see how the endgame will play out, but I'm glad that I have a job and that I am support staff. (Note: universities will always need support staff, and because they need them, they will find funds to pay them.

squirejons2• 13 years ago

I think a lot of PhDs would jump at the chance for a non-academic job.

Call me cynical, but this article looks like more edu-propaganda from the higher education cartel. Why? It deliberately conflates technical and non-technical PhDs. Yes, there may well be a good many non-academic jobs for tech phds, although not as many as this article seems to airily assume.

As for any sort of job for non-tech phds, well, those are hard to come by....

This article makes unstated assumptions that all PhDs can just up and get a non-academic job, should that professorship job somehow not come through.

The higher education industry is evil and has deep, deep pockets. They buy media propaganda like you and I buy potato chips at the convenience store.

I wonder whether this article is bought and paid for propaganda.

RK• 13 years ago

My limited experience is that the German perception of science degrees is that they prepare people for a very broad range of work, not limited to academic science. When I was in Germany studying physics I was always blown away by the large class sizes. I was told that many/most of the students had no plans to continue on in physics, but rather in industry of some kind. I also once saw a billboard in a train station aimed at recruiting physics and chemistry graduates for some company.

In contrast, I'd guess that 90+% of my physics BS classmates in the US went on to do PhD's in physics or something very closely related. Of my PhD classmates, I'm not sure any are working tenure track jobs 3-6 years after graduating... I switched over to data science.

eli_gottlieb10• 13 years ago

In the US, industry prefers to hire graduates with Bachelors of Engineering degrees rather than Bachelors of Science. Of course, engineering majors do take physics, but after the first few courses they start focusing in on specifically engineering-focused material rather than, for instance, continuing into a Modern Physics sequence that contains things like relativity, quantum mechanics, molecular physics, biophysics, etc.

infocollector• 13 years ago

Is there a graph like this per department somewhere? Also: Can a degree get you a job data (either industry/academia) would be very interesting to look at for Bachelor's and Master's per degree.

tedsanders• 13 years ago

I'm a PhD student, and pursing non-academic work after graduate school is totally normal and expected. Many of my advisor's former students have entered industry, so how could she not both expect and accept it? I wonder where this attitude is most prevalent. I imagine it varies across country, region, university, department, etc.

Edit: That said, I don't think my advisor does a good job preparing us for industry.

HarryHirsch3• 13 years ago

You don't need preparation for industry, you need a professor with connections into industry. If your PhD mentor cannot place students you are indeed in trouble.

impendia2• 13 years ago

I am a math professor. My first Ph.D. student got a job outside of academia and I was happy to support him fully and unreservedly.

But:

students still come out with a very narrow window of extremely specialized knowledge

Duh.

Additional courses in broader topics such as writing and business would also be beneficial (6).

Huh? This suggestion ignores the purpose of a Ph.D.: to produce a piece of original research, which is necessarily extremely specialized.

(And for that matter, if students in my Ph.D. program want to enroll in courses in business, writing, or anything else, they can.)

If students or employers want alternative degree programs, that is well and good, I encourage universities to begin offering them, and as a professor I would be quite happy to teach and advise such students.

But I see no reason to dilute Ph.D. programs, which continue to serve the purpose for which they were created.

fatjokes• 13 years ago

May I ask what industry he went into? Was it finance?

psychometry• 13 years ago

My observation is that math PhDs who don't go into academia end up at the NSA more often than any other public or private entity.

potatolicious2• 13 years ago

"(And for that matter, if students in my Ph.D. program want to enroll in courses in business, writing, or anything else, they can.)"

Do they have the time?

My undergrad program was extremely... focused (a word the administration would no doubt use to describe it). In my entire 4.5 years I had exactly two non-engineering electives, the rest of the schedule was a full stack of "core" courses. This was not atypical at my school.

The result of which is that you create a bunch of people who are very narrowly educated. I dodged that bullet with a combination of suicidal course loads (e.g., taking a 7th course in a 6-core-course semester) and class-skipping. Neither were good solutions and I only made it out by the skin of my teeth.

The problem here is that the definition of a Ph.D. for you is extremely different from the definition of Ph.D. for most of your students. I think there's next to no one whose primary objective with a Ph.D. is to produce a piece of original research - it is always a means to another end: usually career-oriented.

There is a dramatic misalignment of what you think you're doing there and what your students think they're doing there.

Fomite6• 13 years ago

"Do they have the time?"

People in my program take Spanish. I knew one person who did creative writing. We actually have a class on consulting in a closely related department that you could manage to sell as an elective. I took some only faintly related classes in another department.

It's not easy, and it will add time (that's the true problem with a PhD, balancing 'Things I want To Do' and 'I want to finish') but it's doable. PhDs are also often much less "locked in" to coursework than undergraduates, especially after their first few years.

"The problem here is that the definition of a Ph.D. for you is extremely different from the definition of Ph.D. for most of your students. I think there's next to no one whose primary objective with a Ph.D. is to produce a piece of original research - it is always a means to another end: usually career-oriented."

I can't think of a single person in my program who wasn't fully aware that a PhD is about producing original research. They might struggle with doing that, but it's a known and understood requirement.

There's a career-oriented degree. It's a Masters.

impendia2• 13 years ago

There is a dramatic misalignment of what you think you're doing there and what your students think they're doing there.

The purpose for doing a Ph.D. is to produce original research.

Motivation can vary: intellectual curiosity, desire for employment (academic or otherwise), because their parents demand it, because "Dr." sounds impressive when hitting on strangers at bars... I'm fine with any of the above, as long as the student is willing to do the work.

The students might love research, or perhaps they feel as if they are being made to jump through hoops --- but, unless the students are getting their information from people who aren't actually familiar with academia, there's no misalignment and our students are indeed getting what they came here for.

gradstudent3• 13 years ago

There is a dramatic misalignment of what you think you're doing there and what your students think they're doing there.

There appears to be a dramatic misalignment between what you think a PhD is for (seemingly, to secure a job) and its actual purpose (to advance human knowledge in some area).

rayiner• 13 years ago

I don't think it "dilutes" the purpose of a PhD to add courses in business and writing. I worked for two companies founded by PhDs. The specialized knowledge poised them well to be more than a cog in industry, but take the lead in enterprises related to their expertise. It's one of the competitive advantages of PhDs over other degrees. A BS and some work experience doesn't prepare you, for example, to get a job building groundbreaking computer vision systems. A PhD is a real value-add for that. That's not dilution. That's recognizing that the degree has value outside the traditional niche of academia.

michaelt• 13 years ago

The 'dilution' isn't the first course, but once you open the door to mandatory courses that people think could come in handy suddenly you have a bunch of them.

It starts with writing and business. And of course you'll need a course on teaching as you'll be teaching. A course in research tools like statistics and designing surveys will help you avoid some potholes. You'll need to reference things properly and avoid plagiarism, better have some training for that. Everyone in this field uses (Matlab/Excel/Latex/MS Word/SPSS/R/NumPy/Fortran/EndNote/BibTeX) so we'd better train you to use that. Effective study strategies will be vital, as will effective note-taking skills. You'll need to know about time and project management, better have a course on that. Of course you'll need to know how to use the library, research databases, and how to make document supply requests. Writing papers and working out which journals and conferences to target is important of course. Presentation skills and public speaking are vital in all manner of jobs. Not to mention career planning, networking and professional development. And you can't be a public academic these days without managing your online presence. Oh, your project involves spending money? You'll need training in managing a budget and working the purchasing procedure...

dinkumthinkum3• 13 years ago

You are correct, it is really silly. As far as business and writing ... Presumably, Ph.D students should have an undergraduate degree, if not a double major. That seems like enough time to have taken a "writing" course. As far as business ... I mean, presumably a Ph.D in mathematics understands supply and demand. It's just all a bit weird advice.

cowsandmilk2• 13 years ago

(And for that matter, if students in my Ph.D. program want to enroll in courses in business, writing, or anything else, they can.)

True this. Almost every university I've dealt with loves for their math and science Ph.D. students to take a business class or two. But requiring it would be outside the point of a Ph.D. Honestly, most Ph.D. programs have a couple core classes, then they are pretty flexible about what classes you take as long as you can make up an excuse.

Additionally, one friend getting a Ph.D. really wanted a job in science journalism. He found time to intern for a newspaper doing the journalism while still a candidate. Plenty of others build up a portfolio just blogging on the side. If you come out of a Ph.D. wanting to be a writer, it's your fault if you don't have a well put-together portfolio.

seanmcdirmid• 13 years ago

If you come out of a Ph.D. wanting to be a writer, it's your fault if you don't have a well put-together portfolio.

I learned to how to write and to enjoy writing in my PhD program. Writing and communicating research ideas and results coherently is actually one of the primary things a PhD does...

mathattack• 13 years ago

I do believe there should be some "Buyer Beware" on Phd programs. Especially if they are fully funded. But you shouldn't change the programs.

If you want to work at a hedge fund, a masters in financial math is a lot more efficient than a Phd in Physics.

analog313• 13 years ago

>> the purpose of a Ph.D.: to produce a piece of original research, which is necessarily extremely specialized.

I'd modify this a bit, since a PhD candidate is still a student, and still works under a teacher. The purpose is to learn how to produce original research, by doing it under a mentor. The mentor has some responsibility to guide the student away from making themselves so specialized and unemployable that their first research result is their last.

Now, I think that as students move up the ladder, they are afforded greater responsibility for their own careers, and greater freedom to -- frankly -- make mistakes. A PhD student should be able to figure out that a job in business might require being conversant in business. But they should also be free to master a skill that no employer cares about, with eyes-open awareness of the risk to their careers.

On the other hand, a student could also think strategically about their research project and employment prospects. I had a physics thesis project with a particular research goal, but considerable latitude as to how I could carry it out, and I steered the project through a series of obstacles that "forced" me to become demonstrably proficient in areas such as electronics and programming, which also happened to be my hobbies. In other words, I tackled a specialized problem by being a generalist.

My father gained his PhD yet was and is a generalist. He went to work in industry. Perhaps this gave me a natural role model, and a background that enabled me to manage the same transition.

kskz2• 13 years ago

I think this is silly. A BS or MS degree is where you should acquire employable skills. A PhD is an apprenticeship for a research topic.

zmb_• 13 years ago

I suppose that depends on the program. At my department Ph.D. candidates are researchers (it's the official title). Their job is not to learn how to produce original research, it is to actually produce original research. Professors are not teachers, they are bosses who assign you to a project and make sure there's a budget to pay you.

M.Sc. gives you the background to produce the research, but just like in the industry, you will learn while on the job. You could be doing equivalent work outside the academia with your M.Sc., in an R&D department of some large company.

As for specialization, you must be extremely specialized to advance your field, which is a requirement for a Ph.D. The point is not to be hired because of your particular speciality, the point is to earn the highest "license to practice science".

mjg59• 13 years ago

I did my PhD in computational genetics. My current career has precisely nothing to do with genetics, which suits me just fine - but I was fortunate in ending up with having a choice between an academic career in a modern field, or a non-academic career in a modern field.

Most PhD students don't have that choice, and that does seem like something of a problem. Realistically, most of them aren't going to have the opportunity to enter a meaningful tenure-track program and stand a real chance of becoming a full professor. Pushing a bunch of people down that track without providing any support for the ones who aren't going to make it seems pretty unreasonable.

I'm not going to argue that that means we should dilute PhDs. I'm fine with the current degree remaining as it is. But we should stop encouraging people to do PhDs just because there's a chance that they're going to get into academia. I gained a lot from my degree, but I could have been taught that without the aspects that were tied to the assumption that I'd spend the rest of my life in academia. We should work out how to provide the more generally applicable aspects without making people feel like shit for doing that and then discovering that they don't an academic position to take up.

judk2• 13 years ago

Who is pushing PhDs? The meme that there are far fewer academic jobs than PhDs has been widespread for at least 10 of 15 years.

A PhD is either a segue to a job in that field, if there is an industry (like pharmacology) or to launching a new segment of industry (as in computer technology) or a non-pecuniary pursuit of folks who are intelligent and financially independent.

ramsaysnuuhh• 13 years ago

This suggestion ignores the purpose of a Ph.D.: to produce a piece of original research, which is necessarily extremely specialized.

Tell that crap to the tourists, the purpose of the Ph.D. is afaict to get the student a high paying job that requires a Ph.D. (because existing phd's say you need one), and the professor tenure and grants.

tensor2• 13 years ago

Here we go again. HN with the anti-academic stance. Almost every week now, we get something like this.

Why is everyone here so insecure that they feel the need to beat up on those who choose knowledge instead of money? You don't go into a PhD to get rich. You do it to learn. If you want to learn, do science on your own. Let's see some detailed reports, complete with hypothesis, methods, data, and conclusions.

Nothing is stopping you. As for these articles, they are not science. There are infinitely more of these than actual science by the HN crowd. That is because zero startup science articles come through here. The occasional industry science piece comes up, but even most of those are collaborations with academia.

If you are truly so passionate about science, prove it with actions.

ChristianMarks7• 13 years ago

Done there, been that. Only I can no longer afford the impoverished life of the struggling adjunct or post-doc, and that's without a mortgage or a family to support.

aortega2• 13 years ago

IMHO Academia is the anti-startup. It's in direct competition with angel-investors. Let's see, the path of academia is:

1) Finish college

2) Do PhD

3) Get funding from gov. to do startup or academic project.

Angel investor path is:

1) Drop from college

2) Get funding from investor.

Investors don't want 30 year old PhDs. They want 20 year old dropouts that will work 22 hs per day. It makes economic sense.

ivanca• 13 years ago

They also don't want people who prefers to learn & discover something than build & sell something.

tensor2• 13 years ago

Yes, and none of this has anything to do with science, which is the point of a PhD. It is not a path to a startup. Startups and businesses are completely irrelevant to academia, as they should be.

A PhD is about science and learning. If you don't do science, or cannot do science, then your opinion about the academic system is irrelevant.

Having gone through it myself I will be the first to tell you of it's problems. But to compare it to the non-science world is a complete joke. Want to make a difference to science? Demonstrate an alternative implementation.

Beyond that, if you went into it for the money, it's your own mistake that you need to take responsibility for. Don't try to paint yourself as the victim. You were never promised riches, only knowledge in a subject of your own choosing.

cowsandmilk2• 13 years ago

Investors don't want 30 year old PhDs. They want 20 year old dropouts that will work 22 hs per day. It makes economic sense.

Nonsense.

Let's look at Warp Drive Bio. They launched with $125MM in funding with three founders who are professors in their 50's[1]. All three of those founders would put most 20 year old start up founders to shame with the amount they work and how much they love what they are doing.

Clinkle's seed funding of $25MM is chump change next to these guys.

[1] http://www.warpdrivebio.com/news/Warp%20Drive%20Launch%20PR%...

squirejons2• 13 years ago

maybe many here see the edu-scam for what it is

(got 3 degrees myself, including a doctoral level degree, but wish I had joined my father in the plumbers union)..

dinkumthinkum3• 13 years ago

Well, you can still be a plumber ...

bdcravens• 13 years ago

Why is everyone here so insecure that they feel the need to beat up on those who choose knowledge instead of money?

Why does it have to be insecurity? I think it's a matter of competing ideology, and that's okay.

dnautics• 13 years ago

agreed. I am one of these unemployed PhDs, and I think people who "choose knowledge" are stupid. There's a massive dunning-kruger thing going on in american academia. Our only saving grace is that it's worse in europe and east asian science is rife with fraud.

monochr• 13 years ago

Here we go again, the idealistic high school student who hasn't had to pay bills in their life.

marincounty2• 13 years ago

I'd agree with your premise twenty years ago, but at today's tuition--a healthy debate is warranted.

foob• 13 years ago

In hard sciences it's typical that your tuition will be completely covered and that you'll additionally be paid a livable wage. With that knowledge, do you agree with his premise now?

east2west• 13 years ago

You know academy is not infallible and scientists are no saints. And boy, are scientists no saints. Passionate about science, please.

Go to Science Career forum (hosted by Science magazine) and see how urgent the need is to cull Ph.D. crowd.

streptomycin• 13 years ago

After entering a Ph.D. program, it quickly became obvious that when in academia, the only respectable job is considered to be, you guessed it, academia.

The whole article relies on that sentence, but it's not supported by anything but an anecdote. Certainly that was not my experience. Although I did pick an advisor who was very practical and worked in industry before coming back to academia, I don't recall any of my friends feeling like they were being pressured towards academia (this is across many departments at many schools).

Similarly, I'm not worried about jobless PhDs. If you're smart enough to get a technical PhD, you're smart enough to do many things (check the unemployment rate by degree level if you don't believe me). Friends who have gone the postdoc path typically chose that over more lucrative and stable job offers from industry, and with full knowledge that it could very likely lead them nowhere in their career. You might be ignorant of the harsh realities of becoming a tenured professor when you start your PhD, but you certainly aren't by the time you finish.

Of course, these are just my anecdotes... but I guess my point is that I probably wouldn't submit my anecdotes to HN without something more meaningful backing them.

mjn• 13 years ago

Yeah, that doesn't fit my experience either. I meet plenty of people with PhDs who aren't in academia but who are perfectly well respected by academics. Many of them still do research and come to conferences, too, because in CS many industry labs also publish research papers [1]. Some of those jobs are more respected than academic positions are, even among academics. For example, Pixar employees are bigger big-shots at SIGGRAPH than just about any academics are.

[1] Example: http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html

MatthiasP• 13 years ago

Too many students see a PhD as potential career and income booster instead of what it really is, the first step in becoming a scientist.

eli_gottlieb10• 13 years ago

"Scientist" is a career.

jccalhoun• 13 years ago

I did my dissertation in the humanities (and since I don't have a job I'm putting off actual graduation as long as I can which is only until may...) and I would love to get a job as a professor but at this point any job that would let me use my skills would be something i would jump at.

okadaka• 13 years ago

I think you generalized some odd cases. I know a few CS and physics professors as friends. Every reasonable professor knows that there are way fewer academic jobs than PhD graduates. To expect all your students to go to academia is silly & is not the norm among professors.

Surely, a professor should strive to have his/her students graduate with sufficient publication record to be suitable for an academic job. Not everyone will have it upon graduation. And it is not the sole point that you must go to academia!

In some fields, there are research jobs outside of academia (eg in CS, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Intel). And in most fields, if you go to industry you make way more money. You just don't get tenure, sabbatical and as much freedom, but it is hardly a failure.

auctiontheory• 13 years ago

The otherwise well-written article omits to mention that most current PhD students should have thought a few moves ahead and not matriculated in the first place. That's the real problem. PhD programs should no more need to teach "how to be a consultant" than BA programs should need to teach remedial algebra and writing.

mdda• 13 years ago

There's also a completely mundane/political explanation (which would apply to industry too). If you're really good, you're an asset to your boss, and your success reflects well on them. So leaving is a backward step as far as they are selfishly concerned. (Imagine your start-up's CTO left for a "better opportunity"...)

The Jobless Ph.D. Generation

Related Stories