2.1 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS
The economy of the United States is absorbing rapidly increasing numbers of graduate scientists and engineers, but continued growth is less certain.
The number of people with science and engineering PhD degrees from US universities who are working in this country has nearly doubled since 1973, from 220,000 to 437,000 in 1991 [1].Figure 2-1 shows this growth by major field. Currently, more than 25,000 scientists and engineers earn PhDs from US institutions each year, most of whom enter the US labor
market either immediately or after a period of postdoctoral study[2]. Appendix C discusses employment trends among graduate scientists and engineers in more detail.
Although increasing numbers of new PhDs have been readily absorbed into the job market over the years, there are clear indications that the most recent new PhDs in some fields are not finding employment as easily as earlier ones, and graduates who have found employment have been more likely to find less-desirable or less-secure positions than earlier graduates.
Among recent PhDs, there is a steady trend away from positions in education and basic research and toward applied research and development and more diverse, even nonresearch, employment.
Graduate scientists and engineers have traditionally been educated and prepared for employment positions in which the ability to perform original research is the skill of highest value. The traditional positions include research-intensive occupations i
n academe[3] industry, and government laboratories where scholarship and research--especially basic research--constitute the primary focus of employment. During recent decades, such research-intensive jobs have increased steadily, and
many new PhDs have been able to choose from an expanding number of such traditional jobs. However, available information on job distribution and trends in terms of both primary work activity and the location of that work indicates a persistent long-term
trend away from employment in traditional research and teaching positions and toward applied research and development and non-academic employment (see Figure 2-2).
For example, the proportion of scientists and engineers engaged in basic research and teaching as their primary activity has declined while the proportion of people involved in applied research and development and other types of work has increased. Acc
ording to the SDR, in 1973, 52% of scientists and engineers with PhDs from US universities were engaged in basic research or teaching activities, but, in 1991, only 37% were in such positions (Table
C-3B). On the other hand, individuals employed in applied research and development increased by about one-third, and the fraction employed in business and industry increased from about 24% in 1973 to 36% in 1991. Within that group, the share of sel
f-employed people more than quadrupled, to nearly 9% (Table C-3B).
Furthermore, the fraction of total PhDs in science and engineering who are employed in academe has declined to less that half in recent years (see Figure
2-3). In addition, basic-research positions in some industry and national laboratories have also been declining. As a result, the activities and employment sectors that scientists and engineers with PhDs have been going into have been diversifying.
Those long-term trends are the basis for a major conclusion of this report, i.e., that PhDs are increasingly finding employment outside universities and more and more are in types of positions that they had not expected to occupy.
It should be noted that different fields and subfields of science and engineering vary widely with respect to employment patterns, job availability, and degree requirements. For example, in chemistry and engineering, many PhDs have long worked in indus
try; in other fields, many still work in universities.
Within nearly all fields, however, the broad trend is consistent: a smaller proportion of PhDs is going into universities and the federal government, and a larger proportion is going into business and industry (engineering was the only field in which th
e proportion of PhDs entering universities increased substantially. With the SDR data, it is possible to compare cohorts of scientists and engineers 5-8 years after receipt of PhD, i.e., after most of them have completed a period of postdoctoral study.
More than half the 1969-1972 science and engineering PhDs were employed in universities in 1977, compared with less than 43% of the 1983-1986 PhDs in 1991 (Figure 2-4). Only 26% of them were employ
ed in business and industry in 1973, compared with 35% in 1991.
Appendix C provides an in-depth analysis of the employment distribution of new and recent science and engineering PhDs by discipline. This is an original analysis based on data from the SDR. Information on a sectoral basis is also provided in the next s
ection of this chapter.
Recent graduate scientists and engineers have been experiencing increasing delays in securing permanent employment.
The employment picture for scientists and engineers, especially for recent graduates, is not clear, partly because the pertinent national surveys of new and recent PhD recipients lag by several years. The picture is complicated by wide differences amon
g fields, some of which are shrinking as others grow. Nonetheless, we find clear evidence of employment difficulties in many disciplines.
Such difficulties are hard to detect with traditional measures, such as the SDR. According to SDR data, unemployment rates for PhD scientists and engineers have remained steady and low for the last decade, compared with those in other segments of the e
conomy. Unemployment rates for PhD scientists and engineers were about 1% in the 1980s surveys and about 1.5% in the 1990s. Unemployment rates for the most recent 2 years of science and engineering PhD graduates were about 1.5% in the 1980s, but rose to
2% in 1993, the last year for which data are available--a disquieting increase that bears watching[4]. The latter rate compares favorably not only with the overall unemployment rate (above 6% in the early 1990s), but also with unemploy
ment among professional occupations generally (2.6% in 1992 and 1993) and among those with at least a college degree (around 3% in the early 1990s) (see Figure 2-5).
The evidence obtained through committee panels and submitted comments (see Appendix G) and through surveys of recent PhDs by some of the scientific societies shows that an unusually high percentage of scientists and engineers are still looking for emplo
yment at the time of or soon after receiving their doctorates. Results of surveys by the professional societies of physicists, chemists, and mathematicians indicate that graduates in some fields are experiencing double-digit unemployment for increasing p
eriods after graduation. Recent scientific and engineering PhDs do eventually find employment, but in some fields the process is taking much longer than it did for their predecessors.
For example, the mathematical societies conduct surveys of new PhDs each summer and update them in the spring. The percentage of new PhD mathematicians still looking for positions in the summer was about 5% during most of the 1980s but in 1990 began to
rise to more than 12% for the classes of 1991-1993[5]. According to the American Mathematical Society (AMS) the percentage of new mathematicians looking for employment the summer after receiving their PhDs was 14.4% for the class of 1
994, even though the number of new PhDs was 12% smaller than the class of 1993 (AMS, 1994b). Similarly, the percentage of new PhDs still unemployed in the next spring was about 3% in the late 1980s, 5% for the class of 1991, 7% for the class of 1992, and
9% for the class of 1993 (AMS, 1994a). The American Institute of Physics (AIP), which also surveys new PhDs each year, found that in 1993, 14% of new doctoral physicists looking for employment had not received a job offer around the time of graduation, a
figure that dropped to 6% six months after graduation. Preliminary estimates for the class of 1994 indicate that those numbers were about 12% and 4% respectively (unpublished AIP data). An American Chemical Society survey of new chemists found that mor
e than 16% of the PhD class of 1993 were seeking employment during the summer of 1993 (Table B-1a in ACS, 1993).
When recent graduates do find employment, they are increasingly underemployed or underutilized.
Doctoral students trained in American universities are traditionally well educated for permanent or tenure-track positions in which they conduct significant research in universities, industry, or government agencies. In the recent past, the US science
and technology enterprise has grown so rapidly that most advanced-degree holders could expect such a position after graduation. Testimony provided to the committee, however, indicates that today many more new science and engineering PhDs are able to obtai
n only part-time positions, short-term non-tenure-track positions, postdoctoral positions that are extended for nonacademic reasons, or positions that are not of the expected type and for which one does not explicitly require a PhD degree[6
].
The National Science Foundation (NSF) uses two technical categories to describe such conditions. The underemployed are defined as those working part-time but seeking full-time work or those working in a nonscience and nonengineering job but desi
ring a science or engineering job. The underutilized are the unemployed (those who do not have positions but are seeking positions) plus the underemployed (NSF, 1994d:69). When considering the employment trends that graduate scienti
sts and engineers have generally had since World War II, underutilized recent PhDs might be described as scientists and engineers whose present employment positions have not matched their career expectations.
The SDR includes both underemployment and underutilization rates. In 1991, for example, 89.7% of scientific and engineering PhDs were employed and 1.4% were unemployed (together, these are considered the total scientific and engineering labor force)[7]. Of those employed, 1.7% were underemployed as defined above. Therefore, of the total labor force, 3.1% were underutilized. The underemployment rate was 1.3% in 1985, 1987, and 1989 and 1.7% in 1991[8]. The under
utilization rate was 2.1% in 1985, 2.4% in 1987, 2.1% in 1989, and 3.1% in 1991. Those figures, of course, differ by field.
Anecdotal information also indicates that although recent scientific and engineering PhDs are seldom working in jobs for which their graduate work is not relevant (e.g., working in a restaurant), they are increasingly able to obtain only part-time or te
mporary positions. Data collected by the scientific societies are also useful. For example, results of the AMS survey cited earlier indicate that beyond the 9% unemployment rate, an additional 5.5% of recent PhDs were able to obtain only part-time posit
ions, and more than half those taking faculty jobs were in non-tenure-track positions (AMS, 1994a). About 10% of the physics PhD class of 1992 was working in temporary or part-time positions (Kirby and Czujko, 1993:23).
Another statistical indicator of underutilization is the rising percentage of new PhDs taking postdoctoral positions. A postdoctoral position is intended to provide further depth of education and job preparation, but it can also act as a safety net wh
en the labor market is poor. The number of scientists and engineers in postdoctoral positions has grown substantially, from less than 15,000 in 1982 to more than 24,000 in 1992 (see Table B-38)
. From 1991 to 1992, the number increased by 5%.
Surveys do not determine the extent to which young scientists and engineers take postdoctoral positions for lack of regular employment. In chemistry, for example, the pool of postdoctoral scientists and engineers is estimated to have doubled during the
last 10 years to more than 4,000. This is equivalent to the number of chemists who receive PhDs in 2 years (Rawls, 1994). Some attribute at least part of this increase to the preference of employers--especially pharmaceutical companies--for chemists wi
th 3 or 4 years of postdoctoral experience.
2.2 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS BY SECTOR
Most of the long-term growth in employment demand for graduate scientists and engineers has occurred in business and industry.
Professional careers are becoming increasingly varied and nonacademic, although this varies somewhat by discipline (see Figure 2-6). More and more scientists and engineers are being exposed to no
nacademic fields before, during, or after their academic preparation. In
addition, because more courses are offered as evening or "distance learning" programs, many graduate students work part- or full-time as they study.
Although most graduate scientists and engineers remain in the same general field as that of their bachelor's degree, many switch fields and thereby obtain interdisciplinary training. Furthermore, throughout their careers, graduate scientists and engine
ers commonly change subjects, kinds of employment, and employment sectors, moving, for example, between educational, industrial, business, and government organizations.
The following sections attempt to describe the direction of employment trends by sector. Although not included in the following section because of the lack of information on their activities, an additional 29,000 PhDs work in nonprofit institutions--in
cluding 9,000 in research and development, 9,500 in professional services, and 6,000 in administration (NSF, 1991).
Of students who earn science and engineering PhDs, the proportion who enter academe has declined to less than half, and this long-term decline is likely to continue. However, there is likely to be increasing demand for teachers in precollege positio
ns.
In the educational sector, according to the 1989 SDR, 48% of the 22,000 people working in universities said their primary activity was teaching and 36% said research and development (24% basic research, 12% applied research and development). Of the 10,
000 employed in other educational institutions (precollege and community college), 59% were teachers and 15% were administrators (calculated from Table 27 in NSF, 1991). In 1992, of the 176,777 faculty and staff (regardless of degree) with instructional
responsibilities in natural sciences [9] and engineering in postsecondary institutions[10], 71% were full-time and 29% were part-time (NCES, 1994).
As shown in Table
2-1, between 1977 and 1991, the proportion of scientists and engineers with US doctorates who were employed in colleges and universities declined from 51% to 43%[11]. This trend was true for all fields except mathematics (which ha
d a 1-year rise in 1991 after years of decline) and engineering. Only 31% of those who received PhDs in 1983-1986 were in tenure-track positions or had tenure as of 1991, whereas more than 35% of those who received PhDs in 1973-1976 were in such position
s or had tenure in 1981.
Consider, however, our precollege-education system as an alternative employment market. Employment of master's-degree recipients and PhDs at the precollege level is expected to grow, and the salaries of entry-level teachers at the PhD level in many pre
college school systems are not strikingly different from those of entry-level professors. According to Department of Education projections for the year 2002, the total number of science-related pre-college teachers is about 480,000 and is expected to inc
rease by 1.3-1.6% per year, which would create thousands of new positions annually (plus those created by retirement or attrition). The average entry-level salary of a precollege teacher with a PhD is about $35,800, and that of an entry-level professor i
s about $36,600 (NCES, 1991;1993).
Some might question whether this is an appropriate occupation for someone with a PhD science or engineering education. However, it is generally agreed that a basic education in science and mathematics will be essential to prepare all Americans for effe
ctive participation in our increasingly scientific and technical society in the 21st century. The national science-education standards prepared by the National Research Council call for hands-on inquiry-based science to become a core subject for all Amer
icans starting in kindergarten (NRC, 1995 forthcoming). Who will lead this effort in each of the 16,000 school districts in the United States? And who will teach our children inquiry-based science? Large numbers of scientifically trained teachers are n
eeded if science and mathematics are to be core subjects for all precollege students; however, current graduate-education programs do not provide sufficient knowledge, validation, or training regarding education for graduate scientists and engineers to ma
ke a transition from scientific and engineering research to teaching at these lower levels.
Some states offer innovative certification programs in precollege teaching for those with advanced degrees (see Box 2-2). As indicated by one committee witness, such programs can enliven precolle
ge education and offer unique rewards to teachers. Furthermore, the talent of motivated graduate scientists and engineers should raise the overall level of science education for younger students who might eventually enter science and engineering.
Positions for graduate scientists and engineers in government are decreasing, and this trend is likely to continue. However, there is likely to be more demand for scientists and engineers to work in particular fields, such as those related to enviro
nmental protection.
In the government sector, of the 29,000 PhDs working for the federal government in 1989, half were in research and development and one-fourth were administrators. Of the 16,000 in research and development, one-third were in basic research and more than
half in applied research. In the case of the 11,000 PhDs working in state government, about one-fifth were in research and development and one-third were in management (calculated from NSF, 1991).
The federal government has long been a major source of employment for scientists and engineers. However, as shown in Table 2-2, this trend is decreasing for all fields except earth/environmental s
ciences. As of September 1993, 112,543 engineers and 99,239 scientists were federal employees[12]. Of the engineers, 3,681 had doctorates and 25,482 had master's degrees; of the scientists, 18,109 had doctorates and 25,744 had maste
r's degrees.
In 1989, the federal government hired more than 13,000 new scientists and engineers--1,100 with PhDs, 2,600 with master's degrees, and more than 9,000 with other degrees.
By 1993, low turnover, program cuts, and hiring freezes had reduced the number of newly hired scientists and engineers to barely 4,000, or about 71% fewer than in 1989 (81% fewer engineers, because of staff reduction in the Department of Defense, and 50
% fewer scientists). Moreover, those being hired were a little older, probably because the federal agencies had a choice of people with more experience.
There are niches of opportunity in specific fields, such as energy and environment, but the overall numbers are steady or declining because of staff reductions and low turnover.
Over the long term, demand for graduate scientists and engineers in business and industry is increasing; more employment options are available to graduate scientists and engineers who have multiple disciplines, minor degrees, personal communication s
kills, and entrepreneurial initiative.
In the business and industry sector, according to the 1989 SDR, of the 113,000 working in for-profit organizations, half listed research and development as their primary activity. Most--35,000--were in applied research, and another 18,000 did development
work. Another large group--29,000--were administrators and managers (primarily of research and development). Less than 3% of the PhDs in industry were doing basic research. Of the 32,000 who were self-employed, half were in professional services and o
ne-fourth were consultants (calculated from NSF, 1991).
As shown in Table 2-3, the proportion of scientists and engineers employed in business and industry for all fields has increased from 26% in 1977 to 35% in 1991. In some fields--such as chemistry
, engineering, and computer science--graduate scientists and engineers have long found employment in nonacademic markets. But survey data, buttressed by testimony of committee witnesses and correspondents, show that this trend now applies to
other fields as well (see Table 2-1). For example, in biological sciences, the percentage employed in business and industry increased from 11% in 1977 to 25% in 1991.
The evidence received by the committee indicates that the trend will continue and that most job creation for scientists and engineers in coming years will occur in business and industry. However, for a variety of reasons, some large industries are modi
fying or closing their central research laboratories: some have become smaller, and some have shifted into enterprises that emphasize development, marketing, and R&D activities that are designed primarily for short-term economic gain. Hence, although
industries will continue to perform research and to offer employment, they might not support traditional research to the degree that they have in the past.
In small and medium-size companies, new and emerging technologies develop rapidly. Such companies provide one of the few increases in R&D funding. Because staff sizes in such companies are limited, successful science and engineering employees are t
hose who can cross disciplinary boundaries and have talents in product development, manufacturing, or technical services.
Jobs in industries that depend on emerging technologies show steady increases (which, however, can fluctuate with the business cycle). Within those industries are fields that are expanding, such as manufacturing simulation, information science, computa
tional simulation, software engineering, data processing, visualization, forensic science, and electronic networking.
2.3 EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVES
As part of its outreach effort, the committee sent out a call for comments to over 1,000 persons: graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, professors, university administrators, industry scientists and executives, and representatives of scientific s
ocieties. The 100 responses received (50% of which came from industry) are summarized in Appendix F. This section provides an overview of graduate education from an employer perspective.
Why do organizations employ individuals with a scientific background? Here is a view from the president of a biotechnology company:
We employ people with a scientific background in almost all aspects of our operations: general management, marketing and sales, business development, regulatory and quality affairs, clinical development, manufacturing and, obviously, research and resear
ch management. We find that a scientific education prepares people well for a number of careers, because it teaches them to be analytical, adaptable, and pragmatic problem-solvers. Furthermore, the spirit of scientific enterprise encourages them to be e
ntrepreneurial which is an increasingly valuable personal quality across the breadth of today's commercial environment.
What do employers think of the current science and engineering graduate education program? Generally, industry and academic administrators responded favorably to the current concept of graduate education, although they expressed some concern as to the
relationship between that education and the positions eventually attained. The following statement typifies the general sentiment: "We may see some specific difficulties in the relationship between academe and the profession it is intended to serve, but
the structure itself is sound."
Some concerns were also expressed about the level of additional education that is needed to enable recent graduates to become fully participating employees. Consider the response from one major industrial employer who hires several hundred people with g
raduate science and engineering degrees in laboratories each year from many universities and in many disciplines:
Even "the best of the crop" take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years to become good, productive industrial researchers. Most recent graduates, particularly those who have not summer-interned, do not have the foggiest idea of what industrial research is a
ll about. Some even think that using or developing technology to do something useful is not research and if it is a product that makes a profit, is even slightly dishonorable.
Those from the academic arena had concerns as well--focused primarily on the teaching and mentoring skills of students trained in the science and engineering graduate system. The following comment is from a graduate dean and provost:
I have long been concerned about the teaching expectations of graduate students--all graduate students, not just in the sciences and engineering. How we can expect that an individual will intuit teaching skills is an amazement. While teaching is somewh
at an art, there are many skills and techniques that need to be learned before an individual should be turned loose to teach a course. We do our graduate students no service, and certainly provide no service to the teachers, if we expect them to function
in that capacity....They also need to be prepared to be academic advisers. It is not enough to walk into a class and conduct that experience. If graduate students are to be teachers, they need to know how to interact outside the classroom with undergra
duate students, providing them the support that they should have during their undergraduate experience.
A common subject was the changing environment--in both the industrial and the academic world. The following is from the dean of a major graduate school:
Graduates are not necessarily being well trained to participate in much of our higher educational system as faculty: facilities for front-line research in sciences are not likely to get less costly. Not many colleges and universities will be able to a
fford the kinds of equipment required for faculty to make significant contributions to science in many areas. If this is true, most academic PhD positions will be in institutions which do not have essential facilities for what is viewed by these fields a
s cutting-edge research. Either the faculty in such institutions will have to carve out areas of research which don't rely on expensive equipment, or they will have to change their expectations of being significant players on the national and internation
al science scene. It may be that there should be some effort devoted to training PhDs for research appropriate to those other institutions, either for enhancing their instructional roles or for providing them with realistic lines of research.
These are from an industry perspective:
In my judgment, educating and training students to do research as well as conducting basic research are still the primary objectives of graduate programs. However, [the programs] must be responsive to changing national policies and industrial needs....
I would agree that the American graduate system has been/is a great success. However, to ignore the indicators that show change is needed would be a mistake. Clearly, the challenge ahead is to retain the best of the system while making the changes that
will strengthen the nation's outstanding research universities and make them more responsive to the nation's needs.
The days when a person could do a PhD thesis in surface thermodynamics (as I did) and reasonably expect to work in the field for a career are over--and I think will never return. One must be ready with the skills to change one's area of focus several t
imes over a career. Most PhD education is training people in the exact opposite direction, and I think this needs to be changed promptly.
This comment from a university graduate dean shows both perspectives:
Unfortunately, the training the graduates receive in universities is not directed to any specific career path. Most of the time, after some necessary training in their background, graduate students are pushed into narrow specialization. The consequenc
e of such training is that many of them lack the breadth for work in industry. From what I have seen from the job offers received by our engineering students, they are successful with relatively less effort if their research topic and/or their assistants
hip experience is closely related to the prospective job description.
The universities are not doing any better in training PhDs for academe either. Except for the recent initiatives taken by some universities in giving them pointers on effective teaching, generally their training is in a narrow area of research and they
are faced with on-the-job training.
There was also a general concern that although the scientific and technological education received was sufficient, the skills training that is part of that educational experience was not. The following comment is from a major consulting firm:
It is our general finding that US graduate schools successfully continue their tradition of producing well-educated scientists and engineers that are capable of making important contributions in their chosen fields. We also believe that the effectivene
ss of these graduates could be enhanced through practical ("hands-on") experiences/traineeships, functioning as a member of a (multidisciplinary) team, strengthened interpersonal skills, ability to communicate clearly the purpose (including the "strategic
" value and relevance) of the activity in question, and substantial knowledge of the business environment/culture (including project-management fundamentals, time/effort/budget deliverables, sensitivity to human-resource concerns, safety, intellectual pro
perty, etc.).
These are from international corporations:
Why are industries such as ours not more accepting of PhDs with little or no experience? Because many fresh PhDs see their research area as their sole focus, at least for the immediate future. They generally tend to be very narrow. And, more importan
t, they generally have no meaningful understanding of the business of business. Some might say that such understanding is the responsibility of business to provide. I say no. A highly trained scientist or engineer cannot be very effective
if she/he has no knowledge at all of how a company is organized and why, lacks understanding about the principal staff and operating functions, is ignorant of the rudiments of accounting and finance, is unaware of product-liability issues that directly a
ffect product development, etc., etc. Industry cannot be expected to deliver such training and education in a short period of time. True, with years of experience working in industry such knowledge is slowly acquired--but it is an extremely inefficient
transfer mechanism. Meanwhile, in the early years when the new technologist is working without awareness of these forces and boundary conditions, that person cannot be as effective as she/he otherwise might be. Careers are throttled.
Most of the new PhDs that we hire seem to be relatively well prepared for careers in our organization. I would urge, however, that rather than move towards increasing specialization, which occurs very early in their training, the students should be giv
en a broad array of courses in related areas early in their training. I have the impression that, also from day one in their program, students are now put into laboratories and given a research project so that they can develop the knowledge and skills in
their specific area of activity to allow them to compete for grants in the future. However, it has been my observation that this type of training limits their ability to participate in multi-disciplinary teams that are often necessary in the industrial
setting.
We look for top-notch technical skills and some evidence of ability to "reduce to practice" the technologies the candidate has been involved in. If we look at new graduates, we look for curiosity about and an appreciation for practical applications of
science. As we move away from independent, stand-alone research and toward more team projects, we screen and hire candidates based on their ability to work in teams, to lead collaborations and teams in an effective way. Skills like project management, l
eadership, planning and organizing, interpersonal skills, adaptability, negotiation, written and oral communication and solid computer knowledge/utilization are critical for an industrial R&D scientist/engineer. If you walk on water technically but c
an't or won't explain or promote your ideas and your science, you won't get hired. If you do get hired, your career will stall.
Expectations are slightly different for those with master's degrees and PhDs. Here is an overview from a major company:
In the case of PhDs we are looking for high intelligence and creativity, the ability to originate and conduct independent research, a research background involving at least a solid thesis research experience, and the potential breadth of talent to move
from one research field to another. The flexibility required by the latter point is important to us because we cannot hire new talent every time we wish to enter new research fields.
We are also looking for excellent communication and interpersonal skills, so that with proper training they can develop into potential management candidates both in the research organization and in management positions in our operations. We have had a g
ood track record in our research organization in supplying high-caliber talent to our operations.
In the case of master's-degree candidates, we are looking for the same kind of talents, except we do not expect experience in conducting research.
In summary, the anecdotal information collected via the committee's call for comments indicates that although employers are generally pleased with the result of US graduate education, they have some specific concerns as to its breadth, versatility, and s
kill development. In particular, employers do not feel that the current level of education is sufficient in providing skills and abilities to the people that they are interested in employing, particularly in
They are also concerned that the graduate-education system--although acceptable for the past employment world--is less and less acceptable in today's more global world.
2.4 THE CHANGING CONTEXT OF EMPLOYMENT
During the preparation of this report, the committee heard sufficient testimony to be convinced of the considerable pain and dislocation among new PhDs. One forum for such discussions is the Young Scientists' Network (YSN), through which junior scienti
sts and engineers discuss employment and other issues on an Internet bulletin board. For example, the YSN recently posted an open letter that said, in part: "Jobs in research are more than scarce today: advertised research positions routinely attract hun
dreds of excellent applicants." The tone of the letter carried the urgency and anxiety that the committee heard during panel discussions with members of the YSN and with other young scientists and engineers.
The changes in the employment market described earlier suggest that the most effective graduate-education programs are the ones that prepare students not only for independent careers in academic research, but also for nontraditional employment in a vari
ety of nonacademic settings (see Box 2-5). Universities and their professors need to revise the science and engineering graduate curriculum so that students are educated and prepared for the opport
unities available. For example, although employers prefer to hire people who have a strong background in basic principles and reasoning, graduate research activities often focus on specialized training and techniques.
In addition, more opportunities are available to graduates who are flexible enough to shift careers. The field that is "hot" when a student enters graduate school might cool by the time of graduation. The first permanent job will seldom be the last, a
s workers in all fields are expected to change positions and even careers with greater frequency. Job-seekers who do not limit their educational preparation--or their job search--to traditional research positions might be better able to take advantage of
a vocational environment that is changing rapidly.
As indicated in Appendix F, committee testimony and written comments from a variety of employers supported that point of view--that employers favor potential employees who
In some cases, multiple advanced degrees or multidisciplinary backgrounds will be useful. For example, a student who combines a degree in life sciences with a law degree might be well qualified for the specialty of patent law within biotechnology. Lik
ewise, a minor in geology might help an ecologist to obtain employment. Other growing multidisciplinary fields are biostatistics, numerical analysis, operations research, and digital signal processing. In some fields, single projects require multiple sk
ills. For example, engineers with specialties in interdisciplinary fields like transportation are more likely to find employment than their mechanical- or civil-engineering counterparts.
Others have emphasized the extent to which strong scientific training--with its emphasis on analytical problem-solving, experimental strategy, and creativity--prepares a person for productive roles in government, business, and industry beyond roles that
require the specific scientific or technical expertise acquired in the education process.
It is impossible to predict whether the rapid growth of traditional positions will resume during the 1990s, as was widely predicted in the late 1980s (Atkinson, 1990; Bowen and Sosa, 1989; NSF, 1989). History has shown that employment trends for gradua
te scientists and engineers are particularly difficult to forecast (Fechter, 1990; Leslie and Oaxaca, 1990; Vetter, 1993). Public spending on R&D and employment of scientists and engineers can change suddenly in response to unexpected events, such as
the launching of Sputnik in 1957 and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic recession of the early 1990s. The continuing debate over employment of scientists and engineers clearly requires a continuing re-evaluation of the graduate education a
nd training of scientists and engineers.
NAS Home Page |
NAP Home Page |
Reading Room |
Report Home Page
Previous Section |
HTML Home Page |
Next Section