is a phd in history worth it reddit

History Phd: Is it really worth it?

Thanks for all of the informative answers, it seems like a PHD in History isn’t for me. But, is a M.A. in History useful? Could you become a history professor, historian, or something across those lines with that degree?

If you want to be a professor, go for the PhD.

Take it from me. Even with a MA, it’s still a challenge to find a job as a historian. Networking is extremely important in getting those kind of jobs so you need to start looking around for an internship if you want to be in history of some kind but not in academia, like a local museum or History Network or something.

Just do not pay thousands of dollars in debt for the MA.

*If Juillet is describing untenured…I’d guess they are part-timers, not covering the rent, possibly with no benefits- and sometimes, no guarantee, year to year. They could be emeriti, yes. But, part-timers. *

They are not part-timers. They are full-time, untenured assistant professors who teach a 1/0 load because they work at a soft money R1 research institution that expects them to research, research, research and write, write, write. My advisor has been here for 6 years, is about to go up for tenure, and he has had a 1/0 load for every year he’s been here - except for the one year that he got an exemption from all teaching duties so he could write a grant. He also got this job straight out of a post-doctoral fellowship, as did several others in the same position. These jobs do exist, they are just extremely competitive and quite rare. Most professors will have at least a 3/3 load.

With an MA in history, one could teach history at the high school level and perhaps adjunct teach introductory history sections at a community college. Even that is difficult, though, because the glut of PhDs on the market means you’ll face fierce competition from those with more desirable qualifications for you even for adjunct jobs at Podunk Community College. You might be able to work in administration at a history museum, and perhaps even assisting in the programming and execution of some exhibits - but like ticklemepink said, networking and prior experience are moreso the key to those than the MA.

You certainly cannot expect to be a tenured full-time professor in history with an MA, not even at a community college these days. If you really, passionately want to be a professor, get a PhD in history. If you don’t think that the grueling work and uncertainty of the job market are for you, try something else.

J, clearly your profs and advisors are top-notch. Kudos to them for earning such a position at Columbia. I mean it. As you note, “extremely competitive and quite rare.” Asked DH about all this and he said any college can make any sort of arrangements it wants, depending on its position and funds. His basic advice to anyone who wants “a PhD in history and to be a prof” is a resounding “forget it.” That includes D1 who is likely headed in the same direction. He’s scrambling to convince her of other ways to use her love for her sub-set of history. And, she’s at a great LAC with one of the acknowledged specialists in her field, a guy with plenty of connections. And, she has already started accruing relevant experiences.

Agree with your post and tickle’s. And, let’s add that, like college admissions, there is also some need for diversity among college faculty and, in some cases, in the ancillary opps, too. Add that to the need to really stand out as a boon to your field, to get attention and a secure position.

The days when one could “fall into” teaching are long gone. Even at my kids’ hs, the word was- this is an exact quote, though brusque: “history teachers are a dime a dozen; we need good science teachers.” My best friend, a scientist with a long-standing, impressive professional background- and an MS- isn’t even getting responses when she applies for hs sci teaching jobs, with an added teaching credential, needed in her state.

I know it’s hard to love something and face this. IMO, the wise follow their love, but keep reality in mind. Get the best, appropriate internship experience you can. And, work hard on the skills you can pick up in the humanities that may be marketable in many directions: the ability to do primary research and comprehend, strong analytical skills and strong writing talents.

So full of errors, you say? I don’t think I have to be in the discipline to note that plenty of PhD’s from ostensibly unmarketable disciplines are nevertheless able to obtain quite nice jobs…as long as they are at name-brand universities. Heck, I can think of quite a few people who dropped out of such PhD programs precisely because they had already garnered such job offers.

I also don’t have to be in the discipline to notice that numerous people in those same ostensibly unmarketable disciplines nevertheless pick up marketable skills. In fact, one of the better statistical programmers that I know is [Tom Nicholas](<a href=“ http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=bio&facId=337264 ”> http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=bio&facId=337264</a> ), who is a historian. Granted, he was trained within an ‘Economic and Social History’ PhD program, but that’s still a history program. He learned many of his statistical programming skills while a PhD student, and even if he couldn’t find an academic placement, his strong stat programming skills, combined with the Oxford brand, would have likely landed him a lucrative position in consulting or finance.

Ticklemepink, are you disputing any of that? If not, then exactly what are you disputing?

I have to agree with juilliet. At Harvard, for example, it is rather uncommon for any assistant professors in any discipline - surely history included - to teach more than 1/1 or perhaps 2/0. The same seems to be true at MIT. {Yes, MIT has a history department; and I suspect that there aren’t any MIT history professors who teach more than 1/1 or 2/0. Nevertheless, they are full-time tenure track professors with reasonable pay/bennies and multi-year contracts.}

One thing can improve your odds substantially: choose a subtopic in your field with a clear preprofessional focus and that allows you to develop useful backup career skills. Within history, one promising subtopic could be something like economic history, especially the history of finance/banking/capital-markets/regulation. Utilize large-n datasets that are highly amenable to advanced statistical analysis that provide you with opportunities to train on Stata, R, SAS, SPSS, or other stat software packages. Historical finance datasets tend to be very large-n, so that should not be a problem. Instrumental Variable (IV) models seems to be the watchword of the day, so learn how to build them. You say that you enjoy US history - well, you’re in luck because the US just happens to house the deepest and most sophisticated financial systems in the world (and, as we have learned lately, some of the most dysfunctional). Surely a historian could find many interesting things to say about these systems historically developed.

By choosing finance/banking/market history as your topic and advanced statistical analysis as your methodology, you immediately make yourself eligible to compete in the job market for business schools - one of the few bright spots within academia. Business schools are not only frantically ramping up faculty, they also pay very well. The market is likely to become even hotter considering that Asia, Latin America, and even Europe want to strengthen their own business schools (even the top European business schools were founded only in the last few decades).

And even if the business academia job market doesn’t work out, with that subtopic and skillset you will have, you can probably find a quite decent job in the research division of a financial firm or perhaps at a regulator (i.e. the Federal Reserve).

So, doing something like financial history as a topic of research only makes sense if it’s actually your real field of interest. If you sign up for a history PhD program in something you don’t like that much, you are going to hate your life for 6 years. And in that case, you might as well just get a “practical” degree in something else. I have a friend who went into a history PhD program in a field he didn’t love because he wasn’t sure what else to do, and now it’s unclear if he’s going to be able to finish it. Getting a PhD in history is not “fun” and it’s not “useful” – it’s more of a labor of love for most people who do it. Only worth it if you really, truly, love your subject area.

My professors always told me “don’t get a history PhD because you want to be a professor, get a history PhD because you want to spend 6 years studying your subject.” You can absolutely go work in other fields afterwords if academia doesn’t work out.

Um, no you’re not. If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave anytime you want. Many people do leave early. Nobody can force you to complete the program.

The major difference being that those ‘practical’ degrees usually require that you pay, whereas PhD programs (usually) *pay you<a href=“although%20often%20times%20in%20return%20for%20teaching%20or%20research%20responsibilities”>/i</a>. Many people therefore rationally view PhD programs as a paid job search, particularly if the program is at an Ivy ( especially Harvard), Stanford, Chicago or likewise school that offers access to elite recruiters. It can also be used as a vehicle to be paid while learning marketable skills, such as the aforementioned statistical/econometric training. There are surely other marketable skills (i.e. languages) that can also be picked up while in a history PhD program.

The upshot is that no PhD program in any way ‘permanently commits’ you to an academic career, either because you may not want to be in academia, or (especially in a field such as history) academia may not want you. You should therefore be entrepreneurial in your approach to your career by constantly seeking to develop marketable skills and gain access to alternate employment opportunities.

Somehow, I don’t think OP, who is interested in “general US history,” is going to convert to “US financial history,” which would benefit from a deep understanding in and studies of economics.

The PhD studies period is about an intense focus, btw. Not exploring languages, programming, etc. You can do that ndergrad. Where academic proficiency in a language or two is required for grad school (and, I doubt that applies to US history,) my experience is that it is usually reading proficiency- not the level required for an occupation dependent on being fluent.

I also would never suggest a kid aim for grad school knowing he can drop out. Too much work and too little back-up.

But hey, you said it yourself, a PhD program requires focus. Nobody can reasonably obtain a PhD in ‘general US history’. You will eventually have to pick a far narrower subfocus to tackle, and US financial/banking history is just as good as any. After all, it is part of US history, is it not?

Besides, any responsible PhD advisor should counsel his students that, at any given time, certain research subtopics and methodologies will be more successful on the academic job market than others, and it therefore behooves students to adjust their research focus accordingly. To provide one example one of the hottest topics on today’s social science job market is behaviorial economics, to the point that incoming economics and psychology PhD students are often times advised to take the first-year course sequence of the counterpart discipline. Those students who refuse to adjust their research focus according to the whims of the market must therefore assume the risk that the job market will will simply be closed to them, which therefore makes the development of marketable skills all the more imperative.

I agree that such a program would benefit greatly from a deep understanding of economics. But a PhD program may be precisely the way to obtain such an understanding.

It’s not a time for exploring statistical programming? Really? That is precisely what plenty of people do within their PhD programs. For example, I can think of quite a few PhD students and graduates in such fields as poli-sci and sociology who have actually earned master’s degrees in statistics while pursuing their PhD’s. That’s what Scott Lynch, Josh Clinton, and JoWei Chen did, and they seem to be having successful academic careers. Maybe somebody should have told them - or more specifically their PhD programs - that they should not have been wasting time ‘exploring’ statistics.

[Home[/url</a>]

[url=<a href=“ Political Science | Vanderbilt University ”> Political Science | Vanderbilt University ]Department</a> of Political Science|Vanderbilt University](<a href=“ http://www.princeton.edu/~slynch/]Home[/url ”> http://www.princeton.edu/~slynch/ )

[url=<a href=“ http://www.lsa.umich.edu/polisci/people/ci.chenjowei_ci.detail]People[/url ”> http://www.lsa.umich.edu/polisci/people/ci.chenjowei_ci.detail ]People[/url</a>]

And besides, I’m not even proposing that anybody obtain an MS in statistics, which is probably overkill. I am simply saying that you become proficient in a handful of marketable statistical software packages, which doesn’t take you that long to learn. After all, if you’re going to work with large-n datasets, you’ll likely need to develop those skills anyway as part of your research methodology.

Which is why you will likely need to supplement. I never said it was going to be easy. But so what? Most marketable skills aren’t easy to obtain.

My philosophy is entirely the opposite: every student entering grad school should understand that he can, or may even be forced, to drop out. As has been mentioned throughout this thread, there aren’t enough academic jobs for all aspiring history PhD students out there. Students are therefore well advised to developed marketable backup skills as part of their education.

Besides, look at it this way. Let’s say that you ignore all of my advice: completing a PhD topic of US history that has no pre-professional ties, never developing a whit of marketable skills while in the program, attending a university that has neither an elite brand nor a power-laden recruiting/alumni access…and then you fail the history academic job market. Now what? Now you’re truly left with nothing. Compare that to the guy who joined the PhD program at Harvard…and then dropped out after a few years to join a strategy consulting firm whose recruitment meeting he obtained through contacts struck at the local Harvard Club. Be honest with yourself: who’s better off?

Sakky, you want to refute you? Fine, so be it.

It depends on the student’s interests. Also many departments allow students in US History to substitute a foreign language for a quantitative research course in statistics or sociology. It’s no guarantee that the student will take these classes seriously and integrate what they’ve learned into their dissertations. They are just alternative options for students who don’t want to or are uncomfortable with foreign languages.

Some departments are proposing a new field of study- digital humanities. I’m interested in seeing where this goes. It’s a new potential opportunity for students to develop marketable skills that can be used in education or public history.

You aren’t going to have a lot of time after you pass your comprehensive exams. Years 4 and 5 should be devoted to dissertation research because by the time your funding runs out in Year 5 and you don’t have additional funding lined up, then you need to find an actual job and work on your dissertation outside of your working hours. That’s very difficult to do but it’s doable.

I’m getting a quiet sense that history programs are seriously considering applicants who have worked at least several years outside of academia. Students are better off getting their marketable skills on the job than in a classroom. This includes foreign language training. If the PhD student wants to work in a job involving China on a regular basis, the student better get their fluency in Chinese (reading and speaking) in order BEFORE going into the program. I know that there are some advisers who do encourage their students to continue taking foreign language classes in their research languages for communication reasons. It all depends what the students’ end goals are. If the student’s end goal is to spend a year or two abroad doing research or a post-doc, further training in foreign language is strongly encouraged, preferably before entering in the program.

Again, it’s all timing issue for history PhD programs. Students only have so much time to explore that anything outside of history classes, including technology, programming, stats, languages, etc should be done before entering. The most successful students come in with enough preparation in the languages and/or have marketable skills because they can just focus on fine-tuning those and spend bulk of their time on their coursework.

50% generally drop out. Either they flunked the comprehensive exams or had family obligations or found an opportunity too good to pass up. True, no program can FORCE you to complete the degree. You’ll only just burn bridges in academia.

What if the OP doesn’t want to? What if the OP wants to study colonial American history with a focus on religion? The OP is better off exploring digital humanities or taking courses in public history. It depends on the student’s interest.

One of the ways that can make those years miserable is a wrong dissertation topic. Students need to have some kind of personal relationship with their dissertation topic. They’re going to be spending more than 3 years working on that and they will encounter people who don’t CARE about it and they need some kind of motivation to keep moving forward.

You are essentially requiring your “hypothetical” student to do a pre-professional focus? Believe it or not, the demand for economics or medical history is quite low. I’ve got a friend who got a PhD with a pre-professional focus (certainly not from a top program) and earned a MPH from a top-notch program at the same time. Guess what? She had NO interviews and ended up landing a general history job at a CC… part-time. After this semester, I believe, she’s leaving academia for an actual job in which she most certainly did not need her PhD for.

You do not have to be in a Top 10 program to land an interview in academia. Your chances are huge, sure, but with a strong adviser, interesting dissertation topic, reasonable expectations, consistent networking, and excellent career preparation from the department or university’s career services, it is possible to be just as competitive as a top-10 candidate.

I graduated with my MA from a top-10. That got me interviews but guess what? Employers were choosing people from less-than top 10. Why? They had the right experience or better prepared for the job. My current job was most certainly not because of my universities’ brands but rather networking .

No matter what graduate student does, s/he must be networking from Day 1.

Any responsible PhD advisor should counsel his students that… Sorry, your Phd advisor is a specialist in the arena you choose to focus on. Using the ^ example, if you want Colonial religious history, you find a grad program with that and the right profs. Your advisor will be a specialist in that (or as close as you can get.) He may suggest an angle or twist, but is he going to tell you to go into a different sub-field? (Maybe, if he has some reason he doesn’t want to work with you.)

Remember, OP is interested, at this point, in general US history . If he is the least bit interested in some specific aspect, he hasn’t yet said so. If he wishes to find a way to combine interests in economics or stats with history- he hasn’t said so.

What some of us are suggesting here is NOT that he take this direction or that one. We are saying, the wool is over your eyes if you think this is a cakewalk.

Use the undergrad period to explore and refine your interests.

It seems to me that you have far more time than you may think. After all, by the time you pass your comprehensive exams, you really should have a sense of where you stand within the program. You should know by years 4/5 whether your department considers you to be a potential star historian or not (and it seems that you do need to be a potential star to have a credible chance on the history job market). You should have been doing sufficient networking to know what your odds will be, and if you haven’t, then that’s the time (immediately after your exams) when you should be calling meetings with as many faculty who are connected with the hiring/publication process to tell them what your research focus is and request an honest assessment of your hiring chances. If you determine that your chances are low, then that’s when your goals should pivot towards just simply finishing the PhD while obtaining marketable skills to do so. And as has been discussed throughout this thread (which I do not dispute), the chances for the vast majority of history Phd’s to place at an academic tenure-track position are low.

Let me put it to you this way. I don’t know too many social scientists who are actually interested in, say, the Generalized Method of Moments. Or Limited Information Maximum Likelihood estimators. Or Multivariate Logits. So why are articles in top social science journals replete with such complexities?

I have been most impressed by the ability of PhD students to choose topics and methodologies that they never even dreamed of ever pursuing when they started because they realized that that’s what they needed to do in order to succeed in academia. This seems to be especially true in the social sciences (of which I classify history). I can only think of a tiny handful of social science PhD students who actually graduated with a dissertation written regarding both the specific topic and using the specific methodology that they thought that they would when they started the program. Most will change focus/methodology, often times quite dramatically, with such focus/methodology always seeming to be coincidentally ‘steered’ towards whatever happens to be a topic or methodology that the journals happen to be predominantly publishing at that particular time.

To give you a specific example from sociology, many (probably most) incoming PhD’s want to pursue a qualitative inductive study using ‘grounded theory’ of a particular social topic of their interest, whether that be crime, an ethnic group, or what have you, yet quickly realize in their first few years of reading journal papers that they need to be tooled up in advanced statistics/quant techniques, because that’s what journals want nowadays, as the percentage of qualitative articles continues to dwindle. Heck, some of them have arguably become fully fledged econometric/statistics scholars, with students who used to barely even understand or care what a regression even is, are now fully fluent in such arcana as Huber-White sandwich-estimators, propensity score matching, multivariate probit/logit, generalized linear mixed models, and the like.

To give you another example, as computational network theory becomes increasingly ‘publishable’ within the literature, plenty of PhD students become deeply adroit in the various computational methods of calculating network features. In fact, I can think of some people who actually used to be afraid of computers and barely knew how to use them for little more than just Web browsing who have now not only become fully proficient in a number of computational network software tools, but are now even developing their own tools . One of them told me that, frankly, this is what you need to do to get published and succeed in academia.

The same holds regarding research topics. Many incoming students hope to research their specific topic of choice, only to find that journals aren’t really publishing articles upon that topic anymore. Departments aren’t really hiring scholars of that topic. The topic is moribund. Resource Allocation is basically a dead topic in sociology/organizational-behavior; nobody has really published any papers on that in top journals in years. {To be clear, Resource Allocation has not been disproven, rather it’s just lost popularity as a research topic.} I can think of a number of students who originally wanted to study Resource Allocation but are now pursuing other topics.

The upshot is, whether they like it or not, young scholars have to conform to whatever journals and hiring/tenure committees desire. Whenever a particular topic or methodology becomes trendy, it behooves young scholars to follow that trend. And many of them display an impressive ability to do just that. As a thought experiment, ask yourself exactly why are so many social science journal articles published in the last 5 years replete with instrumental variable analysis and quasi-experiments? Is it really the case that social science departments just happened to recently admit boatloads of students and junior faculty who just so happen to enjoy using those methodologies? Or is it that they chose to learn those techniques because they realized that that’s what get published nowadays? To quote Gerry Davis, editor of ASQ: “…The entry charge for publication in top journals of organization theory now seems to include time-series data on large samples with lots of control variables using the latest implementation of Stata…” (2010).

If you’re simply not willing to change your topic/methodology, then you have to be willing to assume the (substantial) risk that your research may render you unhireable.

Well, what can I say? The truth is, Phd students risk numerous sources of misery, and one way to be miserable is knowing that your topic is unhireable. What then is your motivation to push forward for those 3 years? Like I said, many young scholars find that they must switch their focus to conform to what journals and hiring committees want. Sad but true.

Certainly, we would all like to pursue the topic that both interests us and is also desired by journals . If that describes you, then more power to you. But that does not describe most of us.

**Put bluntly, the true purpose of a good PhD program is not actually to allow you to pursue whatever topic you desire. The true purpose is to prepare you for the academic job market. ** After all, what’s so wonderful about a program that allows students to pursue the topics they love, if they can’t get hired anywhere? Sad but true. That’s how academia works.

The timing issues that you cited hold equally well in your example. Obviously it would be wonderful if everybody would have developed marketable skillsets before they entered PhD programs. But what if they didn’t, and the programs admitted them anyway? What are those people supposed to do now? You have to work with the skills and opportunities that you actually have, not ones that you wish you had. Like I said, if you don’t have marketable skills before you entered a PhD program, then the program may be an opportunity to develop them.

{Maybe your point is that programs should stop admitting students who haven’t already developed marketable skills. But I think that’s ultimately a different issue.}

I’m not ‘requiring’ that anybody do anything. What I am saying is that if you absolutely refuse to ever change your research focus, then you are assuming the risk that you will be rendered unhireable.

Hey, if you’re not going to be in academia anyway, honestly, so what? After all, you have to live your life for yourself, not for other people. Other people may not appreciate the life choices you make, but they’re not going to have to live your life.

Besides, Sergey Brin and Larry Page dropped out of grad school. So did Jerry Yang and David Filo. Somehow I don’t think the academic community is too upset with them.

It’s surely higher than plenty of other fields in history. Like I said, if you want an academic career, you are well advised to do what is necessary to improve your odds in the job market.

But more importantly, certain methodologies such as computational econometrics are highly marketable in industry, in case academia does not work out.

Which is why I recommended attending a name-brand program. And by that, I don’t just mean a program that is well-branded within academia, but one within the general public . Harvard, frankly, is the king of educational brands. If you obtain a PhD from Harvard and you developed marketable skills while doing so (i.e. knowing Stata, SAS, and/or R backwards and forwards), you will be able to obtain interviews.

Which I think only proves my point. At least you got the interview because you came from a top-10 program. Plenty of people won’t even get that far. Let’s face it - if you are obtaining your PhD in history from Mississippi State University, you’re not going to get an interview at McKinsey, no matter how strong your skills may be.

Now, sure, I agree that once you have the interview, you still have to close the sale. But that’s why I also recommended obtaining marketable skills so that you can close that sale.

Being an expert of that field also should means that you’re an expert about the job market of that field. If he truly is a responsible and caring advisor, then it is his duty to honestly tell you what your odds of placement are in that field should you choose to pursue it. If he knows that the field is moribund - that journals aren’t really publishing on that topic, that hiring/tenure committees aren’t really interested in such candidates - then he should tell you all of that if he is being honest and compassionate, and then, yes, even advise you to choose a different topic under a different advisor in order to maximize your chances of placement.

Now, if he tells you that the odds are poor and you elect to pursue it anyway, then fair enough. At least you did so with full information. But to do otherwise is to lead you on. Remember, it’s your advisor who is ultimately supposed to be guiding you through the job market process. If he doesn’t think that somebody researching your topic can be placed, then he should say so from the very beginning.

Now you could argue that the program should never have admitted those students in the first place. For example, if nobody is really hiring new Colonial Religious History junior faculty, then those departments should simply stop admitting new students. True enough. But that’s neither here nor there. Given that you have been admitted, the question is, what should a responsible advisor actually tell you?

The problem with chasing marketable topics as a PhD candidate is that academic job markets are so thin that they are largely unpredictable even one year out and one typically needs to commit even before completing course work (i.e. 3+ years before going on the market). One is often better off being one of the few new graduates in a relatively unpopular topic area rather than being one of the herd in an area that seems to be the next big thing.

To be successful you need to be both very good and VERY lucky. Essentially everyone is very good, admissions and programs select for that. Consequently, the difference is largely luck. Which departments have lines for rookies the year that you come out, what topic areas are chosen by comparable rookies who happen to come out the same year, how the economy and markets effect funding, etc. These aren’t things that you can predict, much less control.

In an oversubscribed discipline such as History, anyone hoping for any level of assurance or control would apply only to the most elite programs (no lower than top 10) and simply not do a PhD if not accepted. It’s not like applying to undergraduate programs where you know that you must go somewhere. It makes no sense to apply to so-called safety schools unless you come from a developing country and have no good alternative options so opportunity costs are near zero.

Essentially, you’ll end up rolling the dice at some point and living with the consequences of whatever you throw. By only applying to elite programs you take the biggest risk on the front end, before you’ve sunk 4-6 years. If you apply to and accept admission to a non-elite program you will face far more risk on the back end and the cost of the ultimate and likely failure will be far greater.

It’s not a bad idea to do a PhD in an oversubscribed discipline, it just shortens the list of schools that you should consider applying to. In some business disciplines, it might make sense to consider as many as 25 or even 30 programs. In physical science, maybe as many as 20. In humanities, it might be a stretch to go as far as 10.

Sakky, just what is your dog in this race? OP said general US history and you keep referring to sociology and other subjects. What is your relationship to the history PhD process and prospects?

I think it is safe to say that certain trends are long-lasting. For example, the current quantitative/statistical paradigm that is revolutionizing all social sciences (including history) is not going to stop anytime soon, and certainly not in the next 5-10 years, (even though it has almost certainly gone too far to the point of statistical fetishism). The side-benefit for scholars of that revolution is that statistical training, and especially training in modern statistical software, is a marketable skill outside of academia (probably because business managers are both impressed and intimidated by regression tables).

Nor, frankly, is the burgeoning growth of business schools, and hence the interest in business/finance/banking/economic history, going to disappear anytime soon. Indeed, given the increasing globalization along with advances in wealth and interest in business education among their populace within rising nations in Asia and South America, it’s safe to say that business schools will be a clearly growing trend over the foreseeable future.

Numerous history PhD graduates migrate to other, frankly healthier, sectors within academia, as well they should. [Tom</a> Nicholas](<a href=“ http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facId=337264]Tom ”> http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facId=337264 )is one, [Noel</a> Maurer](<a href=“ http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=bio&facId=300128]Noel ”> http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=bio&facId=300128 ) is another, [Sophus</a> Reinert](<a href=“ http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facId=603179]Sophus ”> http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=ovr&facId=603179 ) is yet another. Their message regarding the history job market is consistent: the market is indeed harsh, but you improve your odds tremendously by picking topics and methodologies that are consistent with where academia is trending. For example, as long as business schools continue to hire incessantly, as long as they continue to value statistical/econometric methodologies, then history students are well advised to choose a topic and a methodology that conforms to those trends.

Personally, I find the opposite philosophy to be disturbing. Those advisors who categorically refuse to advise their students on what the current and foreseeable job market values, who simply tell their students to research whatever they desire with no guidance about how to frame the research to conform to the demands of the job market and journals are doing a tremendous disservice to their own students and to themselves as well. As long as hiring committees and journals prioritize certain attributes over others, then it behooves departments to advise students what those attributes are in order to maximize their chances of success. For example, if one type of methodology or field is truly moribund, then you should advise your students not to go there, and if they do, then they be fully informed that they are unlikely to succeed on the job market.

- worldnews
- todayilearned
- nottheonion
- explainlikeimfive
- mildlyinteresting
- OldSchoolCool
- television
- TwoXChromosomes
- LifeProTips
- dataisbeautiful
- Showerthoughts
- askscience
- Futurology
- UpliftingNews
- InternetIsBeautiful
- GetMotivated
- announcements
- WritingPrompts
- philosophy
- Documentaries
- EarthPorn
- photoshopbattles
- listentothis

use the following search parameters to narrow your results:

e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog

see the search faq for details.

advanced search: by author, subreddit...

30 users here now

For sharing of academic works and discussion of issues and events relating to academia and the related political, economical, and social structures.

Commercial posts and endorsements of unethical services such as paper mills will be removed.

message the mods

Welcome to Reddit,

the front page of the internet.

and join one of thousands of communities.

Is a PhD worth it? ( self.academia )

submitted 1 year ago by [deleted]

What are your thoughts and perspectives, I am considering to pursue a PhD in computational biology/neurogenetics but not sure it it worth it in long run (also for jobs after finishing PhD program)

14 comments

Want to add to the discussion?

Is a History PhD worth it?

Thread starter Warrior
Start date Dec 20, 2017

Permabanned

Dec 20, 2017

I used to be very passionate about history, and even now a little especially as it relates to politics and ethnic and political and regional relations, and I was wondering if a history PhD would be worth it because I would LOVE to get a History PhD and apply my knowledge of history, and the subject I was best at in school was history (Pre-college, i didnt take history this semester)

btw, i might be interested in multiple PhD areas at once, like political science, economics, etc. even hard sciences like physics, so don't grill me if i mention in another thread (or this one) something else.....I haven't made up my mind.

Noncompliant

Only if you want to teach. I have a degree in Anthroplogy with a focus on history. It was a,ways just an interst, never expected to make a career of it.

Dec 21, 2017

[MENTION=32163]Littleclaypot[/MENTION]

clever fool

Doctorates are only good if you want to teach at university level. Otherwise they make you look too qualified from an employer's pov. The exception being in some fields where they are a requirement.

Active member

Typh0n said: Doctorates are only good if you want to teach at university level. Otherwise they make you look too qualified from an employer's pov. The exception being in some fields where they are a requirement. Click to expand...

Survive & Stay Free said: Although if they are considering multiple PhD maybe they dont have to work, they could be independently wealthy. Anyway, I think in some ways your point is well made, even if its a country other than my own, which I have discovered really does not rate academic performance and in which is very, very easy to fall into this "over qualified" bullshit trap, there's a hell of a lot of people in medium to large firms who "worked up from the bottom" or took non-academic routes to their positions and are straight up bitter about others learning. Which I think is stupid, given that for the most part it just means people have been well read at one time in one particular area or discipline, I know there's skills involved too but I think it boils down to that. I wish there were more smart people but I also wish there was such hang ups about smartness too. I'd say to Warrior that as important as his core topic is, and he would want to study something that's interesting because I did a masters and I almost hated my choosen topic/area of research by the end of it and it was just a literature review thesis, not what I imagine a research project in a PhD could involve, to consider the extra curriculars and other aspects, as simple as accomodation for instance. Sometimes I think that a decent array of extra curriculars which can evidence your relationships with others a bit more can counter the whole "over qualified" thing or sometimes it doesnt mean shit and they have internal candidates and what not, study something because you want to do that for a few years. Click to expand...

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member.

There is an oversupply of PhDs, at least in America. Most recent liberal arts PhDs can not find full time positions in acedmia. It really isn't a good career choice, right now, at least in America.

The Memes Justify the End

Warrior said: I used to be very passionate about history, and even now a little especially as it relates to politics and ethnic and political and regional relations, and I was wondering if a history PhD would be worth it because I would LOVE to get a History PhD and apply my knowledge of history, and the subject I was best at in school was history (Pre-college, i didnt take history this semester) Click to expand...

â€œQuick the servers are crashing, only a historian can save us nowâ€ Replace â€œservers are crashingâ€ with any business situation that requires a specific skillset and tell me if anyone is likelytk value a history phd. I hired tens of ppl and honestly if i see history or philosophy phd on someone s resume i m likely to assume the guy s an idiot for studying thay and skip the resume. Except maybe if he / she lists the phd under â€œhobbyâ€ at which point i would still be puzzled by the phd but at least respect that they dont seriously think i was going to consider that qualification as valuable to anyone except academia : ie: ppl who never had a real job

EcK said: â€œ Quick the servers are crashing, only a historian can save us nowâ€ Replace â€œservers are crashingâ€ with any business situation that requires a specific skillset and tell me if anyone is likelytk value a history phd. I hired tens of ppl and honestly if i see history or philosophy phd on someone s resume i m likely to assume the guy s an idiot for studying thay and skip the resume. Except maybe if he / she lists the phd under â€œhobbyâ€ at which point i would still be puzzled by the phd but at least respect that they dont seriously think i was going to consider that qualification as valuable to anyone except academia : ie: ppl who never had a real job Click to expand...

My best advice is take a class from each of the majors youâ€™re most interested in

With the work that goes into any degree, especially an advanced degree, I can't see anyone actually seriously pursuing a PhD in history for the sheer joy of it albeit completing it. Now, I am considering pursuing that path, but I would actually really like to teach at the collegiate level. I suppose I'll at least get my masters because if I don't pursue that I think I'll regret never trying. But the job market is not very good for professors at least in history. My academic advisor told me to think of it this way, "When I was an undergrad, my academic advisor flat out told me not to do it. And there was about 6 to 7 times the number of positions back then." I'd first focus on undergrad work and take classes in fields that interest you. Professors also have office hours, and you could either pop in or schedule an appointment to talk about grad school and PhD programs. Also, I wouldn't call any degree useless. History can be applied to a lot of different things. Liberal arts degrees often have a very wide scope as to what you can do with them. They teach you critical thinking, which employers often view favorably. Heck, people have gotten into med or vet school with degrees in history and fine arts.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Dec 22, 2017

EcK said: So you are asking if a phd in a hobby is worth it. As in pay to learn stuff u can learn on your own on the side as a .. hobby? Why? The point of college is to become competent in someyhing thatâ€™s marketable, not â€œfinding yourselfâ€. Click to expand...

EcK said: â€œQuick the servers are crashing, only a historian can save us nowâ€ Click to expand...

Typh0n said: I think having a masters is fine though, most job ads I run into look for a bachelors and/or masters, having a masters as your highest degree is probably the sweet spot when it comes to finding a job, PhD tends to intimidate people though, I'm not saying it's impossible to find a job with a PhD, you're probably going to have better chances with a PhD than with nothing, it also depends on the field you work in, in science for example a PhD is good I would imagine even in the private sector, though we'd have to ask Coriolis. Summons [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] Click to expand...

Coriolis said: Sadly, that has become the point of college. The point should be academic accomplishment in your chosen field of interest, not just a glorified (and expensive) job training program. Click to expand...

It's more like, "The Russians have been slowly moving armored units toward the Polish border for several weeks now, and there is an odd rash of Eisenstein film festivals around the country. Only a historian can figure out what this portends on the world political stage." If you want to lead a research team, or be the principal investigator on grants or contracts, you will typically need a PhD, at least in sciences and engineering. This includes jobs in industry and government as well as in academia. Not sure about what is required for humanities. At least in science and engineering, grad students typically earn a stipend and have their tuition covered, so it is not the huge expense it can be in other fields. Click to expand...

EcK said: Just imagine for a second that when you give an advice you actually had to invest real money into the outcome. Would you invest into @ Warrior 's HISTORY PHD and expect to get your money back ? Really ? See that's the beauty of the market, it doesn't lie. It's easy to give bad advice to people based on rehashed ideas that never survive the light of day, it's harder to put your money where your mouth is. However most adults outside of state sponsored academia have to do that because they'd be living under a bridge otherwise. Spoken like someone who doesn't have a real job. a) that cliched line about how "we need historians because of some hypothetical situation", yeah sure, it'd be nice to have a handful of these - easily covered by hobbyists. what do you do with the other tens of thousands of people with useless degrees? Let tax payers 'take care of it'? because nothing says useful to society like confusing marketable skills with hobbies. Clearly, it does speak of good judgment, we should totally trust the views of people who can't figure out what university / college is for and elevate them as wise men and women in the public consciousness. yeah. right. What other strawmen do you guys use to prop up your egos ? Imagine that the rest of us philistines just can't possibly understand the depth of your non-existent accomplishments? I've studied plenty of topics at PHD levels - in my free time - because they are hobbies. I don't expect to be paid for it because I'm a grown up. Click to expand...

LucieCat said: Then again, what is a "real job" anyway? Someone who is involved in academia and is a professor has a real job in my opinion. That's sort of like saying a high school teacher doesn't have a real job. Teaching, in my mind, is a very real and important profession at any level. It would be silly to have a University with no professors. I see college as an opportunity to learn critical thinking skills and to broaden my horizons so I can make my way through the world as a well-educated individual and make a positive impact. Other than the price, I can't see a disadvantage to pursuing education. Higher education is also a means of social advancement. My mother has a degree she doesn't actually use, but she still found that that experience helps her. If my parents weren't educated, I doubt I would be in a good place where I am now. Education was a means for them to escape poverty and really awful familial situations. Click to expand...

Agent Washington

Softserve ice cream.

EcK said: Spoken like someone who doesn't have a real job.[...] What other strawmen do you guys use to prop up your egos ? Imagine that the rest of us philistines just can't possibly understand the depth of your non-existent accomplishments? I've studied plenty of topics at PHD levels - in my free time - because they are hobbies. I don't expect to be paid for it because I'm a grown up. Click to expand...

Try out the courses at college and see where it takes you. Get to know who the professors are, what the criteria for each major will be. You will be with them for at least four years. You can't plan at this stage because the reality of doing work that SUCKS, with people that suck, will weigh on you and if you persist, you will fail. Source: Someone who didn't want to do history but ended up doing it, because it was the only viable option, including other practical factors such as "actually getting to finish a degree".

Similar threads

Julius_Van_Der_Beak
Apr 22, 2024
Home, Garden and Nature

May 3, 2024
Philosophy and Spirituality

Siúil a Rúin
Aug 16, 2024
Apr 30, 2024
What's my Type?

Nov 14, 2022
General Psychology

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

I wasted six years of my life getting a PhD degree. What should I do, and how will I survive?

I struggled with low self confidence throughout my bachelors, masters and PhD in chemical engineering. After spending two years in Masters and six years in getting a PhD degree, I am lost at what I can do with my life.

Initially, my plan was to be in academia. Though I love doing research, I don't see that as a possibility anymore.

I did not do well in my PhD. I have only two first-author journal publications in ~2.5 impact factor journals. I did not acquire significant skills. I am bad at programming, and I have a 3.7 GPA. I did not learn to drive or learn any foreign language. I did not improve my health or developed a new hobby. I even did not spend time on having a relationship. In short, I have done nothing over the past six years.

My PhD supervisor has given me a postdoc position. And I feel extremely inadequate. I feel that I won't be able to do anything after my postdoc year, and I will just be a burden and disappointment to my parents.

I am an international student living in the US.

I don't know what I should do. What should I do?

career-path
academic-life
early-career
emotional-responses

190 I think your only issue is one of self esteem. I suggest you find a counsellor and discuss where you are and how you feel. Don't let imposter syndrome lead to depression. Your advisor can give you professional advice, but you should also seek personal advice. The future is brighter than you think. – Buffy Commented Dec 7, 2019 at 16:30
7 Is the work fun though? – smcs Commented Dec 9, 2019 at 9:52
1 Is there anything in your past that is unresolved? I suspect your low self confidence stems from something else and not the PhD itself. For example you mention lack of relationship, so I suspect you have a non-existent sex life. Are you exercising and eating right? All of those things need to be in order for you to be happy doing a PhD. Otherwise all you'll have is a PhD which is empty and meaningless. – sashang Commented Dec 9, 2019 at 23:45
3 ‘I have only two publications …’ to me, who has a grand total of zero from both the PhD project that fell short of its desired outcome and my first two years of postdoc in which the ‘basically already finished, just this’ project turned out almost impossible, this is quite a violet slap in the face. – Jan Commented Dec 10, 2019 at 2:33
1 Seek counselling! The problems you describe have very little to do with academia, but very much with you. This website cannot provide adequate counselling in that regard (although some of the answers of course hit very relevant points). – user2705196 Commented Dec 10, 2019 at 18:21

9 Answers 9

It looks to me like you did not do so badly as you think. Two publications and 3.7 GPA are not so bad. It might depend on the field, it might not be the best ever, but I have seen much worse. If your supervisor offered you a postdoc position after having you for 6 years as a PhD student, it means that they consider your work useful.

You might be suffering from impostor syndrome . Do read the question and the answers in that link and see if you identify.

If you are not sure now, you have plenty of time during your postdoc year to decide whether you want to continue in academia or get a job in industry. The pros and cons of both options have been discussed extensively, as a quick Google search for "industry vs academia" shows. I personally agree with this source .

And, in most cases, the answer to "I have wasted X years of my life because I did not do Y and Z" is "do not look at the past and do Y and Z now". Especially when, as in your case, Y and Z can be done at any stage in your career life, such as learning languages, programming or driving.

27 Also, the field is chemistry, where the PhD is basically required for an entry level position in industry, so that is certainly not a waste of time. – Simon Richter Commented Dec 8, 2019 at 13:29
13 @SimonRichter Actually, the field is engineering (chemical engineering) where a BSc is enough for entry level jobs industry. – Cell Commented Dec 8, 2019 at 16:52
2 Get a job in industry. The great part is, that at the end of the project/delivery/month, work is done and completed. At least for me, I never considered the results in science 'done'; also pace is probably faster, so you will get getting quite a few achievements under your belt quickly (since you are smart). – lalala Commented Dec 8, 2019 at 19:03
3 @Cell Where I've worked, a PhD is automatically hired into a position that it would take ~5 years to get promoted to from entry-level with BSc, and the PhD can offer more job opportunities and security in the right industry. If OP goes into industry, the last six years could be well worth it! – Sam Commented Dec 8, 2019 at 19:45
1 @Sam That's nice, but I never said getting a PhD is a bad idea. I was only correcting the previous poster. With that being said, unless you plan on doing novel research, a PhD may make you overqualified for many jobs that can be done by a BASc, or MEng. You also didn't say what your field is. – Cell Commented Dec 8, 2019 at 20:20

To be honest, I'm tempted to agree with Buffy. It sounds like the biggest issue you have might actually be the one you identified at the start of your post - low self-confidence. Studying for a PhD, and working in academia in general, has a tendency to have that effect on people - you're far from alone.

If I were you, I'd be tempted to take stock of my overall life situation at this point, perhaps with some input from the people around me, and try to get an objective view of how things really are - they may not actually be as bad as you think.

For example, here are some plus points:

You finished a PhD. That's already a huge deal - lots of people don't even start a PhD, and of those who do, a proportion never finish. Of those who finish, lots of people feel like they didn't change the world with their PhD, and that's fine - most people don't, and that's not required. You've got the rest of your life to worry about that, if you want to, and it's not required even then. It's ok to just live and be happy sometimes.

You've got a postdoc position lined up, if you want to stay in academia. Your supervisor wants you to stay, which means you probably did something right during your PhD. Maybe your PhD didn't actually go as badly as you think.

If you've just finished your PhD, it's quite likely (in the absence of other evidence to the contrary, which I don't have) that you're still relatively young. That means you've got time on your side - there's still a whole lot of life ahead of you in which to do all the things you want to do (learning to drive, learning a foreign language, improving your health, developing your hobbies, having a relationship, ...). It sounds like you're unhappy that you haven't been doing those things, which means you'd probably be happier if you started doing them. Pick one and go start on it right now - hopefully you'll feel better (it's generally worked for me, when I've been feeling down). Starting on one of them sounds like much more fun than carrying on feeling fed up about not doing them, at any rate.

Best of luck!

p.s. For what it's worth, the fact that you've got a list of things you wish you'd been doing, and are unhappy that you haven't been doing them, is a good sign - there's an easy fix for that, which is go do some of them. That's much better than not having a list of things, and sitting there having existential angst and wondering whether life is pointless :)

The postdoc is with my PhD advisor. I don't think that's an achievement. Probably my advisor felt pity on me and gave me the position. – Abhik Tandon Commented Dec 8, 2019 at 0:57
45 @AbhikTandon: Bear in mind that your advisor has something to lose from keeping you if you're truly not delivering (there's an opportunity cost - they could look for someone better). If they're keeping you, it's safe to assume you're at least above bar. Some advisors are kind, but few are so kind that they'll use their scarce funding to renew someone who has no possibility of being useful to them in any way. Advisors who pity you buy you a beer, gently tell you the truth, and help you find a job elsewhere; they don't generally commit £30k or more just to cheer you up. – Stuart Golodetz Commented Dec 8, 2019 at 1:45
4 @AbhikTandon Do consider that a PostDoc position often involves mentoring or teaching junior students, grading work, running tutorials, et cetera. Given that your PhD advisor is judged and graded not just on their research, but also on their teaching methods/standards, it's a role they quite literally cannot afford to give out of pity. You not being "up to standard" would put their job on the line! (That said, finding a hobby - preferably something more physically active than mentally, such as a martial art, to contrast with work - for a couple of evenings a week is a good idea.) – Chronocidal Commented Dec 9, 2019 at 8:41
the highest possible academic degree that one can achieve
a job in the field
a life in a developed country

You're faring really well.

This is not to say that what you're feeling isn't real. It is real, and there is a problem. It's just that the problem is not what you have, but who you are. What you have is a highly successful life, at the same time, you are depressed and miserable.

You don't need more things, you have it all. No Nature publication will take you out of your dark place. You need to learn to enjoy life and accept yourself.

I know the last sentence is useless in itself, because it only tells you what you need, but not how to do it. Unfortunately, that's about as far as a stranger on the internet can get you. Speak to friends, speak to a psychologist, speak to anyone willing to listen, speak to yourself and try to figure out where does this need for accomplishments comes from, so you can move on.

Technically I believe a DSc is a higher academic degree - but that usually comes at the end of a distinguished academic degree. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Commented Dec 10, 2019 at 16:06
1 @MartinBonnersupportsMonica DSc is not universally higher than PhD. In some countries DSc is just what a PhD in biology/physics is called, while in other countries DSc is just honorary, while other countries don't use PhD at all and have only DSc, which are seen as the equivalent of PhD, in countries that have PhD. – Andrei Commented Dec 10, 2019 at 17:51

You need to talk to someone – be that a counsellor (as @Buffy has suggested in the comments), a family member, a friend, or even (depending on your relationship) your supervisor. It does sound like a good part (if not most!) of the problem you describe may stem from impostor syndrome, and if that's the case, then it will be crucial to have others as a sounding board, to help put things into perspective. I have never known anyone in academia who didn't struggle at some point, somehow. Academia is tough, research is hard and failures are inevitable.

You mention you love doing research. Considering that you have also successfully turned that research into publications, it rather sounds like you do have what it takes to succeed. (Again, to put things into perspective, in my field it is normal for PhD students to graduate with 0–1 publications, and the impact factor of what's considered the leading journal is about 2.3. Different fields are different, yes. But you have definitely not failed.)

The other things you mention seem more minor to me. You say you are bad at programming. But you can always improve – programming, if anything, is one of those things where practice makes perfect. You mention you have neglected your health, hobbies and interpersonal relationships. But this is not uncommon: these things happen to many people who pursue a PhD, in various ways, and it is not too late to do something about them now. You say you have done nothing over the past 6 years. This cannot be literally true (you have earned a PhD, an enormous undertaking), but even if it were, the thing to do now would be to start doing those things you have neglected in the past.

But please do consider talking to someone. Having to verbalize your own thoughts and feelings is an excellent way of beginning to understand your thoughts and feelings, and of starting to see a solution.

Get your frame of reference right.

Achieving a PhD puts you in the 5% highest educated part of the population. That's quite significant. But you're comparing yourself to the smartest people in your direct environment - an environment set up try to get together all the smartest people.

If you don't manage to be in the top 1%, surely being in the top 5% is still something to feel pretty happy with?

They are marathon runners on arrival.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSZlSaPJAdQ

Do they look well? Can you imagine, how bad feeling could it be, being there, after 42km of running?

But believe me: it is uncomparably better to be there, than for us, watching them on the youtube .

Don't do any irrecoverable mistake now! Wait, at least some months, more ideally some years! Take some longer leave, if you can (probably you can), and do nothing! Only think.

For example, now you can learn to drive. Ask anybody having a driving license, but no Phd, would they switch to the other.

I know what it's like to feel like you "haven't been living" for years. Six years of my life disappeared by my being extremely sick.

I have 5 years of unemployment in my résumé, an unfinished PhD, a tiny professional network, and ongoing health problems which make many things impossible. But I'm living again.

Some people have been in prison for 10 years. Some have escaped war-torn countries. Some have recovered from drugs or alcoholism. It's very hard when you suddenly awaken from a world of constraints into a world of choices, seemingly at a huge disadvantage from others within it. (I am not saying you've got it easier than they do. I'm saying you have this in common.)

Some of them go on to do amazing things. They have a moment that will define their life, and they work and work and work and work to a level that others can't imagine, and do something great for the benefit of their fellow man.

Others are just happy to be alive, happy to have gotten away from a bad place. Nothing wrong with that.

The most important thing in life is not success or respect or glory. It is to make choices that keep you out of misery. Anything more is a bonus.

But asking the question you're asking proves you are ready to change your life.

Maybe you could go to your home country or a country in poverty, where your skills and knowledge could make a bigger difference. Remember you don't need to use your degree at all; you could enter a completely different field. It's better to do it by choice than by necessity. Doing a variety of menial jobs of different sorts can be really enriching, since you see life from so many angles.

Doing a PhD doesn't just teach you about your topic; it teaches you about being thorough, exploring the state of the art, problem-solving, organisational skills, and so on. These make you very valuable if you use them well.

I know what I want to create. And I know what's stopping me is not my 6 missing years; it's my unwillingness to confront my weaknesses (like networking and time management.) Now I'm confronting these things, and I'm surprised at my success.

Go get 'em.

Two first-authored papers is not bad, I seen a lot of people getting phd for way less and still being full of themselves. You are doing good.

You don't think you did well during your PhD, but you stuck with it anyways. That sounds like a lot of PhD students. But, it also sounds like students that stuck with something, b/c their parents were back-seat driving their futures.

As others have said, your self-esteem issues stem from something. Something makes you feel inadequate all the time, and makes you compare yourself to others all the time.

Usually, that starts from overbearing parents constantly comparing you to other kids, chastising you for not being as good as some top-tier, stellar performer in your same grade or field, etc.

My dad did that to me my whole life. I was expected to get good grades. When I got them, I didn't get a "good job!" or anything. But, if I got bad grades, I got punished. As I got older, my dad would constantly compare me and my siblings against each other and to other kids his coworkers had. "So-n-so's kid is doing XYZ." (to insinuate it's better then what I was planning on doing, or was doing).

Even when I was an adult, my dad was trying to back-seat drive my career with "advice" that wasn't so much him trying to do what was best for me, but what was best for my career. He never took me, as a person, into consideration when giving advice.

What I realized over time (chatting with my dad extensively) was that he made decisions in his career... he gave up moving up the ladder or managerial positions, because he decided to start a family. He took a back-seat position at his job where he kept his head down and kept his mouth shut so he could keep earning an income and not rock the boat while supporting his family. He made one major career shift up the ladder to get more money, and in retrospect it was an awful decision that uprooted the family and set in motion events that pretty much tore the family apart.

What I realized as I got older was that he was trying to coach me to have the career he wished he could have; he was trying to guide his dream job vicariously through me.

He would push it in ways by either telling me exactly things he thought I should do, or package it as "I was chatting with kids at the gym and giving them advice, and this one kids doing XYZ" (again, to insinuate this "one kid" was doing something better then I was).

I got sick of it.

So, I stopped chatting with him about work, school, etc. When he'd ask or press, I simply told him that I was only going to speak with him like a member of the family, not someone I was seeking career counseling from.

I eventually had a blow-up with him, because I was tired of him trying to back-seat drive my life while I was watching his life implode around him with issues he wasn't staying on top of during a situation that basically forced me to take control of his responsibilities when he ended up in the hospital.

What I learned was ... just ignore him.

In 20 years time, my dad won't be around any more. But, god-willing.. I will.

In 20 years time, will I be happy if I had followed my dad's advice and done this and that? No. I'd be miserable, because he was pushing me to go in directions that were making me miserable.

So, why bother listening to him? Why bother trying to please him?

In 20 years time I can follow his advice and be miserable while he's dead, or I can ignore it and be happy while he's also dead.

Ultimately, I have to figure out what makes me happy, though.

But, when you have someone constantly telling you that you're not doing good enough, you need to do better, you're not doing as well as so-n-so over there, you should be heading in a certain direction, you need to do it all before a certain BS time limit... you know what, you eventually turn into a hot mess that thinks very little of yourself b/c you constantly have a devil on your shoulder that never thinks what you're doing is good enough.

Tell that person (or those people) to go screw off.

Since you're international.. and you're in a STEM field.. and you went through a PhD even though it sounds like you didn't really want to .. I'm going to assume you're Indian.

You need to have a moment of clarity where you decide to be your own person and stop having your family tell you what you need to do and where you need to go in life.

That can be hard if your family is paying the bills.

But, I may be making assumptions, but your story sounds almost identical to a ton of other folks I rubbed elbows with in college... all of them Indian. They were taking STEM when really they wanted to do liberal arts or whatever they were passionate about. Their family pushed them into an "lucrative career", b/c it's all about the money and status with them.

I had a couple of Indian folks tell me they had a massive weight lifted off their shoulders when they told their family to stuff themselves. They were dating people locally, and one was wanting to marry the girl he was dating. One guy dropped his STEM and went into art which is what he really wanted to do (and he was an AMAZING artist).

Ultimately, you have to figure out what makes you happy, and stop listening to folks constantly running you down and telling you you're not good enough.

I rented a room from a gay couple, and one of the guys had a degree in aeronautic engineering. You know what he did for a living? He was the director of a high school band. His parents pushed him to do engineering, b/c he was in the closet and just kept his nose down and did what they said. When he finally got older, he got tired of them, and came out of the closet and pursued what really made him happy: music.

People have to have that moment.

So, you're asking how you'll survive over here? I think you really need to ask yourself what will make you happy. And, you need to start ignoring folks that are running you down.

With a PhD in Chemistry, you don't have to be a great programmer. There are companies that will hire you to figure out some chemistry, and team you up with Comp Sci or Info Sys folks that will do all the coding and stuff for reports, data science, etc.

If you don't like what you have a PhD in, then go figure out what you do like. Maybe you like working on motorcycles or scuba diving or whatever.. find a way to make a career out of it.

It's better to live a modest life that makes you happy, even at the expense of others, then to be rich and f'ing miserable b/c you decided to make everyone else happy.. usually folks that won't be alive in 20 years time.. which just leaves you miserable while they're dead.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged career-path postdocs academic-life early-career emotional-responses ..

Featured on Meta
Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...
Preventing unauthorized automated access to the network

Hot Network Questions

Why does Jupiter spin so fast but not the Sun?
What does the "das" in "Was ist das" mean?
Is missing data necessarily seen as fraud?
Sets that project to zero measure on all lines except one
What is the action economy required to retrieve an item from stowage?
Is observation the only way to indicate that God is real?
Would the Borg react to an escape pod?
How do I find a hotel room by size?
Are there infinitely many possible thoughts?
How does warm start work in simplex algorithm?
How would an ancient Chinese necromancer delay their zombies from rotting?
Is this a standard feature in C
How to read inner-tube size ranges on Conti tubes?
What is the resistance between two vertices on the Hanoi-towers graph?
Two different ways to calculate an integral produce different results. Which is correct and what is the error in the other method?
Your Average Character
Countable set meeting uncountable family of positive measure sets
SSL certificate working ok on Firefox but not for Chrome
Can I vacuum seal my homemade bone broth in a Ball jar?
What programming languages implement memory safety?
Why do evangelicals interpret Heb 4:12 with a meaning that ascribes animacy and agency to a bunch of words?
Common practices for acoustic dB SPL measurements, from pressure vs. time signal
volcanic metallurgy + blacksmithing
A letter starting the largest number of days of the week

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

Is a PhD Worth It? Should I Do a PhD?

It’s been almost a year since I was officially awarded my PhD. How time flies! I figure now is a good time to reflect on the PhD and answer some of life’s big questions. Is a PhD worth it? Does having a PhD help your future job prospects? Am I pleased that I did a PhD and would I recommend that you do a PhD?

In this post I’ll walk through some of the main points to consider. We’ll touch on some pros and cons, explore the influence it could have on your career and finally attempt to answer the ultimate question. Is a PhD worth it?

Before we get into the details, if you’re considering applying for a PhD you may also want to check out a few other posts I’ve written:

How Hard is a PhD?
How Much Work is a PhD?
How Much Does a PhD Student Earn? Comparing a PhD Stipend to Grad Salaries
Characteristics of a Researcher

Are you seated comfortably? Great! Then we’ll begin.

The Pros and Cons of PhDs

When I have a difficult decision to make I like to write a pros and cons list. So let’s start by breaking down the good and bad sides of getting a PhD. Although I’ve tried to stay objective, do take into account that I have completed a PhD and enjoyed my project a lot!

These lists certainly aren’t exhaustive, so be sure to let me know if you can think of any other points to add!

The Good Parts: Reasons to Do a PhD

Life as a phd student.

You get to work on something really interesting . Very few people outside of academia get to dive so deep into topics they enjoy. Plus, by conducting cutting edge research you’re contributing knowledge to a field.
It can be fun! For example: solving challenges, building things, setting up collaborations and going to conferences.
Being a PhD student can be a fantastic opportunity for personal growth : from giving presentations and thinking critically through to making the most of being a student such as trying new sports.
You are getting paid to be a student : I mean come on, that’s pretty good! Flexible hours, socialising and getting paid to learn can all be perks. Do make sure you consciously make the most of it!

Life As A PhD Graduate

The main one: Having a PhD may open doors . For certain fields, such as academia itself, a PhD may be a necesity. Whilst in others having a PhD can help demonstrate expertise or competency, opening doors or helping you to leapfrog to higher positions. Your mileage may vary!
You survived a PhD: this accomplishment can be a big confidence booster .
You’ve got a doctorate and you can use the title Dr. Certainly not enough justification on it’s own to do a PhD, but for some people it helps!

The Bad Parts: Potential Reasons Not to Do a PhD

It can be tough to complete a PhD! There are lots of challenges . Unless you’re careful and take good care of yourself it can take a mental and physical toll on your well being.
A PhD can be lonely ( though doesn’t have to be ), and PhD supervisors aren’t always as supportive as you’d like them to be.
Additionally, in particular now during the pandemic, you might not be able to get as much support from your supervisor, see your peers or even access the equipment and technical support as easily as in normal times.
You might find that having a PhD may not bring the riches you were expecting . Have a certain career you’re looking to pursue? Consider trying to find out whether or not having a PhD actually helps.
Getting a job with a PhD can still be tough . Let’s say you want to go for a career where having a PhD is required, even once you’ve got a PhD it might not be easy to find employment. Case in point are academic positions.
Even though you’ve put in the work you may want to use your Dr title sparingly , it certain industries a PhD may be seen as pretencious. Also, use your title sparingly to avoid getting mistaken for a medic (unless of course you’re one of them too!)

Is a PhD Good For Your Career?

If you’re wondering “Should I do a PhD?”, part of your motivation for considering gaining a PhD may be your career prospects. Therefore I want to now dive deeper into whether or not a PhD could help with future employment.

It is difficult to give definitive answers because whether or not a PhD helps will ultimately depend a lot upon what kind of career you’re hoping to have. Anyway, let’s discuss a few specific questions.

Does a PhD Help You Get a Job?

For certain industries having a PhD may either be a requirement or a strong positive.

Some professions may require a PhD such as academia or research in certain industries like pharma. Others will see your qualification as evidence that you’re competent which could give you an edge. Of course if you’re aiming to go into a career using similar skills to your PhD then you’ll stand a better chance of your future employer appreciating the PhD.

In contrast, for other roles your PhD may not be much help in securing a job. Having a PhD may not be valued and instead your time may be better spent getting experience in a job. Even so, a PhD likely won’t have been completely useless.

When I worked at an engineering consultancy the recruitment team suggested that four years of a PhD would be considered comparable to two or three years of experience in industry. In those instances, the employer may actively prefer candidates who spent those years gaining experience on the job but still appreciates the value of a PhD.

Conclusion: Sometimes a PhD will help you get a job, othertimes it wont. Not all employers may appreciate your PhD though few employers will actively mark you down for having a PhD.

Does a PhD Increase Salary? Will it Allow You to Start at a Higher Level?

This question is very much relates to the previous one so my answer will sound slightly similar.

It’ll ultimately depend upon whether or not the industry and company value the skills or knowledge you’ve gained throughout your PhD.

I want to say from the start that none of us PhD-holders should feel entitled and above certain types of position in every profession just for having a PhD. Not all fields will appreciate your PhD and it may offer no advantage. It is better to realise this now.

Some professions will appreciate that with a PhD you’ll have developed a certain detail-orientated mindset, specialised knowledge or skills that are worth paying more for. Even if the position doesn’t really demand a PhD, it is sometimes the case that having someone with a PhD in that position is a useful badge for the company to wave at customers or competitors. Under these circumstances PhD-holders may by default be offered slightly higher starting positions than other new-starters will lower degree qualifications.

To play devil’s advocate, you could be spending those 3-4 (or more) years progressing in the job. Let’s look at a few concrete examples.

PhD Graduate Salaries in Academia

Let’s cut to the chase: currently as a postdoc at a decent university my salary is £33,787, which isn’t great. With a PhD there is potential to possibly climb the academic ladder but it’s certainly not easy. If I were still working in London I’d be earning more, and if I were speficially still working at Imperial in London I’d be earning a lot more. Browse Imperial’s pay scales here . But how much is it possible to earn with a PhD compared to not having one?

For comparison to research staff with and without PhDs:

As of 2023 research assistants (so a member of staff conducting research but with no PhD) at Imperial earn £38,194 – £ 4 1,388 and postdoctoral research associates earn £43,093 – £50,834 . Not only do you earn £5000 or more a year higher with a PhD, but without a PhD you simply can’t progress up the ladder to research fellow or tenure track positions.

Therefore in academia it pays to have a PhD, not just for the extra cash but for the potential to progress your career.

PhD Graduate Salaries in Industry

For jobs in industry, it is difficult to give a definitive answer since the variety of jobs are so wide ranging.

Certain industries will greatly reward PhD-holders with higher salaries than those without PhDs. Again it ultimately depends on how valuable your skills are. I’ve known PhD holders to do very well going into banking, science consultancy, technology and such forth.

You might not necessarily earn more money with a PhD in industry, but it might open more doors to switch industries or try new things. This doesn’t necessarily mean gaining a higher salary: I have known PhD-holders to go for graduate schemes which are open to grads with bachelors or masters degrees. Perhaps there is an argument that you’re more employable and therefore it encourages you to make more risky career moves which someone with fewer qualifications may make?

You can of course also use your PhD skills to start your own company. Compensation at a start-up varies wildly, especially if you’re a founder so it is hardly worth discussing. One example I can’t resist though is Magic Pony. The company was co-founded by a Imperial PhD graduate who applied expertise from his PhD to another domain. He sold the company two years later to Twitter for $150 million . Yes, including this example is of course taking cherry-picking to the extreme! The point stands though that you can potentially pick up some very lucrative skills during your PhD.

Conclusion: Like the previous question, not all industries will reward your PhD. Depending on what you want to go and do afterward your PhD, it isn’t always worth doing a PhD just for career progression. For professions that don’t specifically value a PhD (which is likely the majority of them!) don’t expect for your PhD to necessarily be your ticket to a higher position in the organisation.

Is a PhD Worth it?

What is “it”.

When we’re asking the question “is a PhD worth it?” it is a good idea to touch on what “it” actually is. What exactly are PhD students sacrificing in gaining a PhD? Here is my take:

Time . 3-5 (more more) years of your life. For more see my post: how long a PhD takes .
Energy. There is no doubt that a PhD can be mentally and physically draining, often more so than typical grad jobs. Not many of us PhD students often stick to normal office hours, though I do encourage you to !
Money. Thankfully most of us, at least in STEM, are on funded PhD projects with tax free stipends. You can also earn some money on the side quite easily and without paying tax for a while. Even so, over the course of a PhD you are realistically likely to earn more in a grad job. For more details on how PhD stipends compare to grad salaries read my full analysis .
Potential loss of opportunities . If you weren’t doing a PhD, what else could you be doing? As a side note, if you do go on to do a PhD, do make sure you to take advantage of the opportunities as a PhD student !

When a PhD Could Be Worth It

1. passion for a topic and sheer joy of research.

The contribution you make to progressing research is valuable in it’s own right. If you enjoy research, can get funding and are passionate about a subject by all means go and do the PhD and I doubt you’ll regret it.

2. Learning skills

If there is something really specific you want to spend three year or more years learning then a PhD can be a great opportunity. They’re also great for building soft skills such as independence, team work, presenting and making decisions.

Do be aware though that PhD projects can and do evolve so you can’t always guarantee your project will pan out as expected.

If there is the option to go into a career without a PhD I’d bet that in a lot of cases you’d learn more, faster, and with better support in industry. The speed of academic research can be painstakingly slow. There are upsides to learning skills in academia though, such as freedom and the low amount of responsibility for things outside your project and of course if you’re interested in something which hasn’t yet reached industry.

3. Helping with your career

See the section further up the page, this only applies for certain jobs. It is rare though that having a PhD would actively look bad on your CV.

When a PhD May Not Be Worth It

1. just because you can’t find another job.

Doing a PhD simply because you can’t find a job isn’t a great reason for starting one. In these circumstances having a PhD likely isn’t worth it.

2. Badge collecting

Tempted by a PhD simply to have a doctorate, or to out-do someone? Not only may you struggle with motivation but you likely won’t find the experience particularly satisfying. Sure, it can be the icing on the cake but I reckon you could lose interest pretty quickly if it is your only motivation for gaining a PhD.

Do I Feel That My Own PhD Was Worth It?

When I finished my undergrad I’d been tempted by a PhD but I wasn’t exactly sure about it. Largely I was worried about picking the wrong topic.

I spent a bit of time apprehensively applying, never being sure how I’d find the experience. Now that I’ve finished it I’m very pleased to have got my PhD!

Here are my main reasons:

I enjoyed the research and felt relatively well fulfilled with the outcomes
Having the opportunity to learn lots of some new things was great, and felt like time well spent
I made new friends and generally enjoyed my time at the university
Since I’d been interested in research and doing a PhD for so long, I feel like if I’d not done it I’d be left wondering about it and potentially end up regretting it.

In Summary, Is a PhD Worth It?

I’ve interviewed many PhD students and graduates and asked each one of them whether the PhD was worth it . The resounding answer is yes! Now of course there is some selection bias but even an interviewee who had dropped out of their PhD said that the experience had been valueable.

If you’ve got this far in the post and are still a little on the fence about whether or not a PhD is worth it, my advice is to look at the bigger picture. In comparison to your lifetime as a whole, a PhD doesn’t really take long:

People graduating now likely won’t retire until they’re in their 70s: what is 3-4 years out of a half century long career?

So Should I Do a PhD?

Whether a PhD is worth all the time and energy ultimately comes down to why you’re doing one in the first place.

There are many great reasons for wanting to do a PhD, from the sheer enjoyment of a subject through to wanting to open up new career opportunities.

Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that practically every PhD student encounters difficult periods. Unsurprisingly, completing a PhD can be challenging and mentally draining. You’ll want to ensure you’re able to remind yourself of all the reasons why it is worth it to provide motivation to continue.

If you’re interested, here were my own reasons for wanting a PhD.

Why I decided to pursue a PhD

Saying that, if you’re interested in doing a PhD I think you should at least apply. I can’t think of any circumstances where having a PhD would be a hindrance.

It can take a while to find the right project (with funding ) so I suggest submitting some applications and see how they go. If you get interesting job offers in the meantime you don’t need to commit to the PhD. Even if you start the PhD and find you don’t enjoy it, there is no shame in leaving and you can often still walk away with a master’s degree.

My advice is that if you’re at all tempted by a PhD: go for it!

I hope this post helped you to understand if a PhD is worth it for you personally. If it is then best of luck with your application!

Considering doing a PhD? I have lots of other posts covering everything about funding , how much PhD students earn , choosing a project and the interview process through to many posts about what the life of a PhD student and graduate is like . Be sure to subscribe below!

The Five Most Powerful Lessons I Learned During My PhD

8th August 2024 8th August 2024

PhD Salary UK: How Much Do PhD Students Get Paid Compared to Graduates?

5th February 2024 4th July 2024

The Benefits of Having a PhD

7th September 2022 30th January 2024

4 Comments on “Is a PhD Worth It? Should I Do a PhD?”

Hi Thanks for the post . I have been struggling to make a decision regarding doing a PhD or doing a second masters . I’m currently doing an msc civil engineering online (because of covid) so for my research I am not able to conduct lab experiments. Therefore my research is more of a literature review / inductive research. So I feel I’ll be at a disadvantage if I were to apply for a phd program especially at high ranking universities like oxford , imperial etc What are your thoughts?

Hey Esther,

I completely appreciate that it’s not an ideal situation at the moment so thanks for reaching out, it’s a great question. A few thoughts I have:

• If you are already tempted by a PhD and would do a second masters simply to gain lab experience, there is no harm in applying for the PhD now. At the very least I suggest considering reaching out to potential supervisors to discuss the situation with them. The universities realise that current applicants won’t have been able to gain as much research experience as normal over the last year. Practical lab experience has halted for so many people so don’t let it put you off applying!

• If you don’t get in on the first go, I don’t believe it looks bad to apply again with more experience. I applied for PhDs for three years, it doesn’t need to take this long but the point is that there’s not much reason to give it a go this year and stand a chance of getting accepted.

• Although we can be optimistic, even if you were to do a second masters it may not be guaranteed that you can gain as much lab experience as you’d like during it: even more reason to start the ball rolling now.

I hope that helps, let me know if you’d like any other further advice.

Best of luck. 🙂

Funny, every one i have talked to as well as myself when we asked ourselves and others whether the PhD was worth it is a resounding ‘No.’

I guess it comes down to a Blue or Red Pill, LoL.

Hi Joe, thanks for sharing this. I’ve spent enough time on the PhD subreddit to see many other people who haven’t had good experiences either! On the flipside many people do have positive experiences, myself included. There is perhaps an element of luck as to what your research environment turns out to be like which could somewhat dictate the PhD experience, but ultimately I do think that answering whether or not a PhD has been worth it really depends a lot on why someone is pursuing a PhD in the first place. I’m keen to make sure people don’t have unrealistic expectations for what it could bring them. I really welcome hearing about different experiences and if you’d fancy sharing your perspective for the PhD profiles series I’d love to hear from you.

Privacy Overview

IMAGES

What is a PhD in History Worth?
What is a PhD in History Worth?
history PhD is valuable too, right? : r/okbuddyphd
What is a PhD in History Worth?
Online Ph.D. in History Degree
The best PhD thesis and dissertations in history

VIDEO

[r/Askreddit] What’s something you tried once and instantly knew it wasn’t for you?
My mom had me when she was 17. Part 1
Cool
THE ENDING OF THIS STORY... 😨
During the weekend that my ex-husband had our son, the doorbell rang in the middle of the night
is a PhD worth it? #engineering #biomedicalengineer #phdstudent

COMMENTS

Thinking of Getting a PhD in History : r/academia - Reddit
A History PhD is, indeed, intrinsically worth it, IF: you are realistic about the job market (i.e. a tenure-track position is a long shot for the very strongest and most committed PhDs)... but you have experience in a worthy alternate career-track already (public school teaching), so that's good
I'd really love to get a PhD in history and teach ... - Reddit
Yes we do grant a great deal of PhDs, but mostly in American history, studying another country will not only fund your graduate school, I had a several FLAS's over the years, it is govt fellowship to learn non-European languages, but it will increase the odds of getting a tenure track job.
Is a history PhD worth it? : r/AskAcademia - Reddit
If you have to go into significant debt for a degree that in all likelihood, won't be necessary for the job you end up with, then no, a PhD is not worth it. But if you get a good funding package, or just want to play the academic job lottery, the odds are exceedingly low that it will be worth it.
History Phd: Is it really worth it? - Graduate School ...
Is it worth it to get a Phd in History and become a professor? Does it pay well, and what exactly do you get to do? Do you publish a lot, write many books, travel to seminars, etc? All help is greatly appreciated. (Btw, I’m interested in general U.S. History).
History Phd: Is it really worth it? - Graduate School ...
Is it worth it to get a Phd in History and become a professor? Does it pay well, and what exactly do you get to do? Do you publish a lot, write many books, travel to seminars, etc?
Is a PhD worth it? : academia - reddit
If you stop at a bachelor's or master's, your eventual boss might have a PhD. The advanced degree isn't for everyone, but it opens up depth and variety in your career options. My PhD took me into six different specialties at five different employers ranging over government, industry, and academia.
Is a History PhD worth it? | Typology Central
I used to be very passionate about history, and even now a little especially as it relates to politics and ethnic and political and regional relations, and...
I wasted six years of my life getting a PhD degree. What ...
After spending two years in Masters and six years in getting a PhD degree, I am lost at what I can do with my life. Initially, my plan was to be in academia. Though I love doing research, I don't see that as a possibility anymore. I did not do well in my PhD.
Is a PhD Worth It? Should I Do a PhD? - The Savvy Scientist
Is a PhD worth it? Does having a PhD help your future job prospects? Am I pleased that I did a PhD and would I recommend that you do a PhD? In this post I’ll walk through some of the main points to consider. We’ll touch on some pros and cons, explore the influence it could have on your career and finally attempt to answer the ultimate ...
I'm considering the PhD in History, am I dumb? : r ... - Reddit
I'm a PhD student in History at a top 20 school with a very good placement rate. I came at this with just a BA from a small lib arts college, so I'm in a different position than you, but I'll give my two cents. If bad job prospects are enough to dissuade you from applying, don't apply.