By its nature, doing a Ph.D. means you spend a lot of time in academic settings. The common definition of a “successful career” for a Ph.D. holder (and you feel this stigma constantly in an academic lab) is a research career in academia, because that is the environment they are most familiar with.

The problem is, unless the student is truly prescient like Chris is, or has by good fortune been exposed to mentors or faculty members that are open-minded and allow/encourage them to gain other skills, graduate students DO NOT gain ANY formal exposure to anything but academic research. There is NOTHING in graduate programs that provides information regarding the true academic job market reality, or allows for things like internships/volunteer placements with outside organizations, or provides students with other marketable skills.

Jobs that require a scientific background are out there, but as a grad student you are expected to spend most if not all of your time doing research.

This is why I agree that “no”, there is not an over-production of Ph.D.’s because there are “alternative careers” (a huge misnomer if I ever heard one). But I also agree that “yes” there is an over-production of Ph.D.’s–if you define a successful career as an ACADEMIC.

The problem can be rectified by instituting more FORMAL programs (and I stress formal, because grad students are usually socially awkward enough not to go to networking functions) for educating students and post-docs on alternative careers; mechanisms to allow student to try out other careers by taking time off of their research; and banishing the stigma that anything but an academic career is “failure.”

We need to create formalized mechanisms graduate programs that train workers for non-academic careers FIRST and academic careers LAST. I give credit to Ph.D.’s that realized this early in their careers, but most of us get shocked into reality only at the post-doc stage because of the absence of initiatives to expose Ph.D.’s to other career paths.

While there may be a perception of lot of scientists out there and not enough “science jobs”, I have also found that a lot of the scientists I meet have a very narrow view of what an appropriate job IS for them.

While they are naturally in an innovative profession (or one that affords them the opportunity to work on innovative projects at least) I have often heard them disparaging the idea of doing anything business-related (such as thinking of/working on a marketable product as the outcome of their research), believing that it would “dirty their work.”

Maybe part of the problem is this narrow view. Maybe, as is the case in much of the rest of the working world, we need to expand the skill set and conception of what a scientist can do. Anecdotally, those with the varied skills always seem to do well, no matter whether there’s a scarcity of jobs or no.