Do you really need a PhD?

I've been wondering how many of our readers aren't PhD researchers, and what options are out there for folks who aren't.

With the academic research track getting tougher and tougher, are people increasingly looking at science careers which don't require a PhD? What about research specifically -- are there career options doing research for folks who stop at a Masters, or are those options limited to positions such as lab technician?

Former NSF director Rita Colwell had an interesting article on this very topic in last week's Science, describing the flowering of Masters program in the sciences.

-Alla Katsnelson, news editor

That answer depends on what field you are in and whether you want to work for a PhD or not.

I've known many people who have made a successful career with a M.S and/or and MBA. However, the truth is that a Ph.D will get you more traction in the long-run. I've heard someone once say that it is easier to teach a Ph.D about business than it is to teach an MBA about science...so it all depends where you see yourself, 2, 5 10 years down the line.

I see successful researchers with Master degree and not so successful PhD researchers in our center. When I need to choose team members, it does not matter if the person has a PhD or not. However, there is a glass ceiling if they eventually want to move up to be one of the leaders.

One of the problems with our system is that a PhD program is well suited to teaching an individual about how to run a lab and be a P.I., but it's an inefficient method for teaching all of the other skills that are so highly valued in a PhD. Skills like critical thinking, logical problem solving, the ability to rapidly research a new topic, rapid data assessment, communication (both written and verbal), and others could all be much more rapidly addressed in a Master's program designed to focus on these skills. Grant writing, wrangling with journals, and lab management should be the focus of a PhD program, and rightfully so if your goal is to run a lab. However, there are many positions that require a PhD (either explicitly, or implicitly) where they are not particularly interested in these P.I.-centric skills (a number of industry positions come to mind). The fact is, that the majority of successful PhD students cannot become PIs (there simply aren't enough open slots), even if they wanted to. Many get their PhD never intending to become a PI, and yet, when they attain their degree, they find that their skill sets do not match well with the positions that they want, and cannot easily bridge the gap. This disconnect between training and skills desired by employers could be fulfilled with a meaningful Master's program. This would require buy in by the academic community and the employers outside of academia who want the advanced skills and bright individuals, but don't want to hire what is perceived as an individual with second-class training. There's no good solution right now, but with the increased (and increasing) number of PhDs, and shrinking number of PI positions, a new mindset must emerge where you can be judged by the skills you have, and not by the letters behind your name.

I think the system is rather broken. I have read a number of Master's theses that were far better work than most PhD theses. And I have read too many PhD theses that were:
A. Rubbish
B. In the final analysis, based on the work of others (usually SRAs) who have Masters degrees or less.
C. Basically plagiarism of some sort done in collusion with a professor they are sleeping with. (Yes, Virginia, it does happen, and the problem has gotten worse as the penalties have increased. A student who sleeps with a thesis adviser now has the power to destroy that person's career. Surprising, isn't it, that those students always graduate.)

I don't think having a PhD should matter as much as it does. Or, maybe it should matter, but the system should change. One can petition down from PhD to MS. But it just isn't done to petition up. But graduate groups, and graduate studies departments should be watching for both types of theses.

When a PhD turns in shlock they should be downgraded to an MS. When an MS turns in something really good, they should be upgraded to a PhD. I would start by concentrating on the latter myself.

This is one of life's little disappointments. In order to raise a family and continue to advance I had to leave the bench when I reached that "ceiling" but it wasn't for a lack of ability, intelligence or skill at research. Today I'm a CEO of my own company and while I reached the standard of living that I wanted and the level of leadership I deserved, I still look back longingly at the enjoyment I received from basic research and the community surrounding it. I miss it and if I could do it all over it would have to be somewhere that looked purely at the contribution made at all levels, and not the degree held to make that contribution. Just like our educators have never been properly compensated for the importance of what they are doing, our basic scientists have suffered a similar fate.

I believe that it is important to create a niche for yourself and it certainly can be done with a Masters degree. In my case, I have a Masters in Biology and worked for several years as technician / technologist. Recognizing that I was not going too much higher than that, I added a Masters degree in computer science. I created a niche for myself that exists between the two disciplines. Interestingly, since I choose to stay in the science side of the Pharmaceutical business, I still find myself with a glass ceiling. Everyone above me has a PhD and I have no ability to go higher in the organization. If I had switched to the computing side of the organization, my growth could have continued with no such limitations.

All in all, a PhD just comes down to being a little bit of paper.

If you (or your employer) puts more focus on this than actual display of knowledge, talent and ability - then you're focusing on the wrong thing.

I've now been in two jobs where someone without a PhD has been directing people who do (albeit, outside of pure research).

The question posed was not one of whether some with PhD's are worse scientist than some Masters degree scientist. We can all find examples of that and curse the University that provided that PhD.

The question is whether there's a sociologic ceiling for typical Masters degree holders. The answer to that is 'yes' and for the same reasons mentioned by some--there are too many PhDs for the number of available positions.

If you are a Masters holder in a company setting where your merits can be seen, you may be rewarded within the company. However, should you decide to move, you will be in open competition with a large number of people possessing PhDs and, unless you are well known at that new location, you are unlikely to even be interviewed.

MarkICN has it right--know the job market and get the qualifications for the job you want. If you are going to be a computer scientist in a biology setting, then your Masters in Biology is wildly beneficial as it provides you a huge leg up over other computer scientists. However, if you want to become a 'lab head' in Biology, then you must have the PhD in an appropriate field.

MONIKA105332 wrote:... I've heard someone once say that it is easier to teach a Ph.D about business than it is to teach an MBA about science...so it all depends where you see yourself, 2, 5 10 years down the line.

Doesn't this have to do with the possibility that someone with a grounding in exact sciences (say, chemistry or physics) will find it easier to shift to a field of predominantly descriptive science (e.g. biology), than the other way round? An example that comes to my mind is that of (late) Francis Harry Compton Crick, Nobel Laureate. The distinction between the "exact" and "descriptive" sciences is, of course, becoming blurred, because those in the traditionally "descriptive" ones are now using the methodologies, techniques and tools that are essential for the exact sciences.

I think a Masters Degree is enough, if research methodology is taught. As it is referring a person a Doctor who is not a doctor is funny. I heard one agricultural scientist telling his physician: you are a human doctor, I am a plant doctor! If you do multiple researches serially how many doctorates will you earn! In fact, after a post graduate degree, one should be asked to do a graduation in research methodology, if one wants to pursue a career in research. After a successful research work, one should be made a fellow of the society of researchers, instead of awarding a PhD. That is a correct nomenclature. Doctor of philosophy is a misnomer in various fields of activity. - S R Kundu, Scientist, NISCAIR, CSIR, India

The simple answer is no. There are definitely jobs for B.S. and M.S. scientists that are fulfilling and pay well. Especially if you want to be involved in direct research activities a PhD may not be the most direct route. Increasingly PhD positions are more managerial for research activities than hands on.

TSTS472280 wrote:

MONIKA105332 wrote:... I've heard someone once say that it is easier to teach a Ph.D about business than it is to teach an MBA about science...so it all depends where you see yourself, 2, 5 10 years down the line.

Doesn't this have to do with the possibility that someone with a grounding in exact sciences (say, chemistry or physics) will find it easier to shift to a field of predominantly descriptive science (e.g. biology), than the other way round?

Biology is hardly a "descriptive" science! The biology I was taught uses as much rigor, metrics, scientific methodology, etc as what you describe "exact sciences" to be! But that is a totally difference discussion...

AllaTS1008775 wrote:I've been wondering how many of our readers aren't PhD researchers, and what options are out there for folks who aren't.

Well I think it all depends on the skills you have but remember with Master Degree as everyone said here there is a glass ceiling which is hard to break. I am with Master degree and worked for 14 years both in Industry and Academia but every where I ended up hitting the glass ceiling and could not move further up the ladder. It was not cause I was not competent but cause I did not have a "PhD". Personally I have believe that if you have the soft skills like Skills like critical thinking, logical problem solving, and communication then you don't need a PhD as many PhD I have seen don't have these qualities and these are the qualities no one can teach but just can guide. Looking at the past none of the great scientists who build the scientific base had a PhD degree, so why do people make so much fuss about having a PhD. I feel it should be time to access the candidates based on their ability rather then based on a piece of paper. I have worked with PhD people who had no motivation or any skills more than a technician. Even after 8 years of post-doc he hasn't moved up the ladder (not even Research Associate position). My boss/mentor encouraged me to do my PhD and now after 3.5 years of working for it I think I can move up the glass ceiling and move further up

. So all I can say is if you are good and have only master degree think about doing PhD and not cause for moving up but to stop some of the non-deserving candidates to move up just cause they have PhD.

You really do not need a Ph.D to be successful, not even an MS degree, one good example is Bill Gates who not even graduated with a BS! Another good example is Steve Jobs of Apple.

Ph.D is like an airplane, MS is like a car, and BS is like a bike, and many who do not have all these tools, they can run and they run very fast, faster than a bike, faster than a car, and faster than an airplane.

If you only have MS degree or car, you know you can outpeform people with Ph.D with airplane if you commute within an hour. But, when your function needs to travel the whole country, you may need to hire a Ph.D or airplane, or you may just drive with your car. Sometimes, people envy people can ride with their jet, like GM CEO's first mistate to fly to DC, and later he decided Ph.D was not a good thing, so he came back with a MS to DC.

So, the key is not comparing Ph.D or MS or BS, it is really depending on what you need, and what you may need. Some position, as I can tell you, if you do NOT win Nobel Prize, you can NEVER dream of, even with your MS, you believe you are better.

Also, when you compare Ph.D and MS, you want to make sure you compare the "right tier" of universities. If you have only MS degree, and can find out you are better than a Ph.D from UC Berkeley or Princeton University, it is very unlikely. On the other hand, if you got an MS from top universities, it is very often you see you are more capable than Ph.D from never heard of universities.

So, how would you do if you have MS degree? The best thing to do is get a Ph.D, life is very long, and Ph.D degree, in good university, such as UC Berkeley or Princeton University will give you lots of insight and chance to meet many talent people and thinking.

I just went to Middlesex County College in Edison NJ and someone trying to teach there was told he needs at least an MS to teach there, but if want to be a full professor there, needs an Ph.D. This is also a trend to many 2 year colleges that getting much more popular in current economic situation. e.g. 50% of Computer Science major at Rutgers University, 4 year university, were transferred from Middlesex County College.

NO! Don't waste time on a Ph.D.! The Current U.S. System of granting Ph.D.s shares many similarities with a massive Ponzi scheme.

Many of the scientists who completed their Ph.D.s by around the end of the 1960s have done well. The outcomes of many who graduated later have been much worse. The reality is that most employers in the U.S. consider you "overqualified" if you have more than a 4 year degree. Secondarily, many employers have turned the legislative intent of the Age Discrimination Act of 1967 "on its head" - and do not consider prospective employees over the age of 40! Thus, the steadily - increasing time to complete a Ph.D. consumes a significant fraction of the number of years you might be employed.

With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, the system now has a set of perverse incentives that work against native - born U.S. citizens. The investigative journalism of MIT mathematician Eric Weinstein, Ph.D. has clarified how a federal agency (The National Science Foundation) in their quest for "fresh (inexpensive, indentured, and imported) young blood" actively promoted federal policies that discriminate against native - borns. The set of policies have been spectacularly successful from an employer perspective. Now, most acadmic departments in science and technology fields are about 1/2 foreign - origin. The objective of keeping salaries low has been achieved. You may learn more about what Eric uncovered here: How and Why Government, Universities, and Industry Create Domestic Labor Shortages of Scientists and High-Tech Workers" http://www.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html

There needs to be a massive "house cleaning" so that meritocracy in science is restored.

Some articles that I have written provide additional background:

Gene A. Nelson, Ph.D.'s 13 April 1996 speech at the National Academy of Sciences Washington, DC headquarters.
http://www.engology.com/ArtNelson.htm

Whose University is it Anyway?
8 February 2008 University of Buffalo Spectrum (I earned my Ph.D. there in 1984)
http://spectrum.buffalo.edu/article.php?id=35243

The Greedy Gates Immigration Gambit
Fall 2007 (Published in January 2008)
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/eighteen-one/tsc_18_1_nelson.pdf

Career Destruction Sites - What American colleges have become
Spring 2005
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/fifteen-three/xv-3-207.pdf
Missing table regarding H-1B visa usage by NIH Grantees:
http://www.jobdestruction.com/ShameH1B/Library/BrainSavers/H-1BVisaUsage_NIH_2003.pdf

I look forward to your feedback.
Gene A. Nelson, Ph.D.

I have an MS, work in industry, and love my job. I haven't hit the ceiling or feel like I am near it at all.

My workplace will go by performance and skills, along with degree. It is possible to be a manager with a BS or MS. I also am working on my MBA, but not because I feel like I need it to keep moving up, but because I have an interest and want to open doors to other possibilities.

An MS is a great degree for entry in industry! Usually far fewer PhD positions open up and they are so competitive. With an MS you can start and work your way up, and you do have some better traction than a BS.

I think Gene is right, although I won't go so far as to say don't get a PhD. Instead, I say we need to reform science.

We need to reform it because one of the major insidious effects of non-citizens filling up graduate programs and post-doc positions is that those people are dependent upon the P.I.'s goodwill to remain employed and in the country. The problem with that is that these people, regardless of their own ethics, will not challenge or inform authorities when professors are committing criminal acts and acts of scientific fraud, to say nothing of more vanilla academic misconduct like sleeping with their students in return for good grades. (Yes, Virginia, this happens more often with foreign students. It also happens more often with foreign born professors.)

A lesser problem, but growing, is that a larger fraction of foreign born have compromised ethics than native born do. 5/6 of the world's population does not grow up with the rule of law. These people take advantage of the scholarly circle of trust to perpetrate frauds and work the rules of compensation very effectively to enrich themselves quite ruthlessly. And when they see that certain native born "leading lights" in science or medicine are frauds who happily sentence Americans to degraded life (over-prescription of SSRIs) or even death to enrich themselves or protect their income stream, they feel right at home. (No, not all foreign born are this way, and I know quite a few that are completely ethical. But they are increasingly common.)

I am quite certain, because I have seen the unethical horsetrading and its results up close, that there is a growing compromise of the NIH peer review system by networks, little mafias if you will.

It is long past time to clean house. If we do not, it will be cleaned for us sooner or later, and we will not like it any more than Wall Street is liking what is going on.

Yes, if you are foreign born, you may need an Ph.D (airplane), or how can you fly back and forth, say, between US and China or India? Drive your car (MS) may not be able to.

If you are American born or US citizen, all you need is a BS (bike) or may be just high school deploma (walk). With the inherit citizenship and fluent English, are are the boss, and you can rent a car (i.e. hire a MS), domestic made or import.

Professor Tu, when working on his History Ph.D at Wisconsin Univ, he was always humilated by the Chinese restaurant owner where he worked for. He was kept teassing a useless Ph.D can do nothing but waitors. His boss is only high school, but with citizenship.

If you are foreign born, you really need to get a Ph.D (airplane) to be able to survive better, and that's why most of you recognize why US Ph.D program got huge % of foreign born.

The US law makes you to serve Amerian, and the first job is to serve undergraduate American who are likely to just get a BS and work. So, you become very cheap labor to work as Teaching Slave or Researching Slave that Corporate USA would never pay their BS.

Of course, if you come as many Amigos who do not pursue Ph.D, they will be slaved in farm, Chinese restaurants, supermarkets, childcare, eldercare ...etc to serve American with minimum wage.

So, if you are foreign born, come to the US, do get a Ph.D, do not listen to those TRUE Americans who have citizenship by born and speak full English.

So, how about if you are citizen with great English? It really doesn't matter much if you get a Ph.D or MS or even BS. They key for your success is to "marry a foreign born lover" who often will get higher degree than you. e.g. My ABC friend (American Born Chinese) only got a high school degree and doing auto repair (maybe just vocational school?), but he is always proud of his wife went to Cornell University.

My other friend with Ph.D from UC Berkeley and end up married another ABC wife who only got BS degree. To be more fair, Ph.D married BS+US (US is the US citizen degree)

How about if your are US citizen and also got a Ph.D? then, you may marry a Ph.D from, say, Princeton University or other top university? Why? Princeton is very hard to get in for your kids and the rate is only 8%, whereas, the admission rate for alumni would be jack up to 40%. So, to certain extend, foreign born to US citizen, is like non Princeton alumni parent to alumni parent.

So, as you can see, American has lots of circles, from outside to inner, so if you are at the far outer circle (foreign born, no green card), you really need a Ph.D, and a Ph.D from top university. But, if you are already in the inner circle, you may not need to.