I have search a lot for masters... I see the same availability as before... the ACS have approved more M.S. than Ph.D. programs in the U.S.A. - so it doesn't seem like fewer master now... may more students enrolled in Ph.D.'s, may be not - that I don't have the data, but the programs are available to M.S. as before...

Yes, do yourself a favor and add a MBA or Law degree!

"What makes a Ph.D. unemployable? Not simply unemployed and unable to find work at the moment, but unlikely to find work in any economic climate?"

Having a Ph.D. in an area that isn't economically viable. The competition is better than you. Having an advisor who tells you s/he writes stellar letters of recommendation for you when s/he is not. You went to a $h!tty school. Getting black listed through the upper echelons of the grapevine/academic/industrial network. Having a poorly written resume/CV. Your grades suck. Not having enough publications, or not being focused enough to complete tasks and activities. Jack of all trades master of none. It's just your turn NOT to be employed. Poor interviewing skills. Your appearance is odd/awkward - affects the outcome of the interview ya know, assuming you get one. It's not your destiny. There aren't enough jobs to go around for all the Ph.D.s.

The reasons can be many and not even your fault. Don't take it personally that times are tough, they really are.

Find out what, besides this horrific economy, is holding you back. Find out what, if anything, can get you back on track.

Critically review your life and come up with a Plan B, C, D, E, and F. Because, like you, I will eventually be unemployable for being too old, too qualified, not sharp enough with the younger crowd, not fitting in with the company culture. My days are numbered, and for a 40-something non-Ph.D. scientist, some young whipper-snapper fresh out of school (B.S./M.S.) can make half as much as I can in the U.S.

My company lets both Ph.D.'s and M.S.'s into the same type of R&D positions. By and large, there are individuals in both categories that are successful in Biotech R&D. There is some corporate-level snobbery about the degree in some departments of R&D, while in others, it is not uncommon for B.S.s or M.S.s to make Senior Scientist rank ahead of Ph.D.'s.

The difference between success and failure seems to be tied not to the degree, but to the focus and attitude of the individual.

As a successful R&D scientist in biotech *industry*, I would much prefer to have a scientist (of either degree type) with a focus on what the customer needs to be successful with the product, and how to negotiate the internal hurdles and tasks set forth by Marketing, QC, and the like to get the product to the finish line.

Once you're already in industry, there are some indices of a successful researcher. Someone with a lot of publications, patents, or products (especially successful products) is likely to go further than someone who went to a company to 'do science' but could never guide the product to the door for release.

I've seen a lot of (sad) Ph.D.'s who seem to have a lot of ideas about what might be happening from a scientific standpoint, but have no commercial sense about how to move their product to release.

I've seen a number of MS's who are focused on doing whatever it takes to get the product released. Again, neither degree is necessarily indicative of the type of industrial scientist that person will become.

I'm a MS R&D scientist who has many more project leadership roles, and my name on more projects and products than a lot of Ph.D.'s with a similar tenure/time with the company.

It's not something they teach you in grad school, a commercial sense, but it's something that a person picks up by realizing that just doing experiments is not the same as being successful in an industrial research space.

"What makes a Ph.D. unemployable? Not simply unemployed and unable to find work at the moment, but unlikely to find work in any economic climate?"

In my experience, it's difficult to employ someone if they seem to have worked for a long time but don't have a great track record in either publishing/patents. The other key is presentation and communication skills - this cannot be emphasized enough and I don't think PhD programs teach it properly, and I don't think Professors understand the need for it in industry properly. For newly graduated PhDs, often the problem is that they're not properly trained to really do a job even if their PhD is relevant. It's the old experience catch-22 but you can build it up - but you have to be patient and focussed. 1 or 2 postdocs is becoming the norm unfortunately; make sure you use them to a)publish, b)train and prove you can do and have done what you'll want to get a job doing in industry.

What makes a Ph.D. unemployable? Not simply unemployed and unable to find work at the moment, but unlikely to find work in any economic climate?

"I guess the BIGGEST drag of being a Ph. D. is being forced to live like a transient going from fellowship to fellowship until you are deep in your 30s ... I mean when the hell are you supposed to start your life?"

If that's what's happening then you're obviously unemployable. Lots of qualified PhD's get jobs, even right out of school

Two things, it's only human that psychologically we are felt compelled to feel that our 14 hour days MEAN something. When in reality, we were usually just running around for an old profs amusement and trying to meet the ridiculously inflated thorough standards for academic research. (I suppose someone has to do it.)

All of the criticisms of Ph. D.s is FAIR. I mean, we were isolated and somewhat catered to for 4 plus years working on some trivial stuff. We really have an overly narrow focus when we enter the work force.

But nobody wants to HIRE us to bring us up to speed. Every job insists on having a Ph. D. plus an infinite time of experience. Some of the job postings allude for more experience than their niche field has been in existence.

It really is the rate limiting step in bringing quality scientists up in the U.S. not wanting to hire fresh Ph. D.s

I guess the BIGGEST drag of being a Ph. D. is being forced to live like a transient going from fellowship to fellowship until you are deep in your 30s ... I mean when the hell are you supposed to start your life?

"When I do come across someone who won't do the "grunt" work, or will only do it with much grumbling, it is more likely to be the Ph.D."

Absolutely! Some of the PhD's I've worked with think the degree means they're Scientists. Those are the ones that sit in their offices all day long surfing the internet and acting as over paid kibitzers when you hand in the data.

Being a Scientist means the you're the whole package, including putting on a lab coat and doing what needs to be in done in the lab. The PhD's I've worked with that are willing to work in the lab, in addition to being the kibitzer/administrator, are the only ones I respect.

Then are those without PhD's that are better, or at least equal to, any PhD out there, so it's really all about what you produce, not how much time you spent in College. Those few almost always travel up the ladder, regardless of degree, assuming you can hack the corporate political environmental as well.

Interestingly, I interviewed for a job with Merck back in 1990 when I was fresh out of grad school with an MS. One PhD remarked that he'd have never bothered with a PhD if he'd known how far he could have gotten with just an MS and a brain in industry.

Academicians are the only short sighted snobs when it comes to the initials after your name.

"There will be alot more "dorks" on the market next year with Pfizer/Wyeth and Merck/SP mergers. Good Luck to all."

You mean the fact that I've only worked 5 hours a day for the last 25 years might reflect badly in a job search?

Warning ignorant post below. The university granting a PhD degree is trivial compared to the PhD advisor and publication record.

"You can get a lot of grunt work from a Ph. D. than a masters"

In my experience I haven't seen much difference in the quality or quantity of work done between a person with a Ph.D or a Masters, regardless of the position. When I do come across someone who won't do the "grunt" work, or will only do it with much grumbling, it is more likely to be the Ph.D. My guess is that it's because of the expectations and sense of entitlement the degree brings, particularly if their degree is from a more prestigious university.

I think its a bit shortsighted to catagorize MS level people as the PhD leftovers, or any less motivated. It may just be a situation of timing. Some people take a Masters degree and then enter the workforce, or return while working and achieve the degree. Whereas a PhD is generally attained in a continual fashion. Credible PhD programs are pretty much unavailable at night. However, I have seen MS and PhD degree individuals work together in similar job functions without any drop off in quality. It is more about the job description than the degree attained depending on what either individual is involved.

"There will be alot more "dorks" on the market next year with Pfizer/Wyeth and Merck/SP mergers. Good Luck to all."

YUP...

There will be alot more "dorks" on the market next year with Pfizer/Wyeth and Merck/SP mergers. Good Luck to all.

Furthermore, I think one off the biggest challenges in hiring scientists is that our motivation is questioned. They want us to LOVE our science because our successors did it because the LOVED the science. With hundreds and hundreds of scientists chasing out a few jobs, our motivation for science is question. Do we really really love the science? Or are we going to just burn ourselves out just to try to make a steady pay check?

Yes, but you will have to agree that masters only programs are becoming the exception than the rule. Many people who ended up with masters degrees, just tacked it onto their Bachelors if they were ahead a few credits and did undergraduate research.

The rest, most of them are Ph. D. burn outs. They recruit for Ph. D. students, they don't recruit for masters students. A Ph. D. student, is worth a lot more in quality, independent research productivity than a masters. You can get a lot of grunt work from a Ph. D. than a masters.

It's just the nature of the system. What is unfortunate is that our work ethic is marginalized by the world at large, and it's only something that is in the know by people who either are scientists or have a Ph. D.

My friends and family, especially nonscientists, are totally baffled by the treatment of Ph. D.s ... hell scientists who have been in the field for ages are totally baffled by this too, they never really had it this bad.

A Masters doesn't necessarily mean you quit or got kicked out. Some universities (like the California State University system [NOT to be confused with the University of California]) have Masters programs but not PhD programs.

Blah ... I can't say I regret my Ph. D., but I seriously do think it hampers my ability to find a job. I have few intimate relationships, I can't keep a girlfriend, and I was bouncing for grocery money. I guess I'm slowly coming to terms that my life is going to be a one of constant transition. I may be tall, athletic, empathic, but because I chose a Ph. D. in science ... I guess I'm just going to be traveling the globe every 3-5 years indefinitely.

But I can't say I regret the Ph.D., because ... you only get a masters if you either a) quit, or b) get kicked out. The merciful thing would have been to throw me out of the program and get a job with a masters, but I just couldn't quit. I couldn't look at myself in the mirror and call myself a quitter. What's even more heartbreaking is that the real world seems to reward those that quit ...

I'm hoping to get a postdoc abroad ... I'm hoping that signing off on the U. S. for a while will give me some hope.

Even companies with fresh venture capital funding are not hiring:

http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/technology/2009/07/17/vc-financed...

Consequently, there will be fewer new jobs to absorb all those displaced by the layoffs. Further, this recession is going to go on for a while and jobs are always a lagging indicator (meaning they won't come back until much later in the recovery).

This means there might be a LOT of unemployed scientists/technicians/etc. for a VERY long time.

And Merck/Schering-Plough will be adding onto that unemployed list soon also.

There will certainly be a LOT more unemployed PhD's, Masters, and BS's after today's Pfizer/Wyeth meetings!!!

Finding a Job with a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry is tough here in the US presently. There are opportunities if you can learn to say "do you want fries with that" or "plumbing is in Isle 6".

There is such a thing as over educated. My advice as a bio-tech business owner is to get a BS for sure from a great school. But after that, do not get a PhD for Money get it for interest and love of science. I hire very smart, well spoken, hard working (60-80 hr./week) <$40-50K/yearly forign PhDs. Sorry this is the market price. I am not exploiting them. Everybody is hiring them at that price. There are so many of them, I never get to the native Americans. Belive me I want to. I post a position and 80% of resumes are Indians or Chinese. I have no idea, how they get Visa.

However we Americans have something they do not have yet, If you want to make a lot of money your best bet is to start business.

So would you suggest that if one is interested in the sciences and likes working in the industry and has a degree and a few years experience to return to school obtain a PhD (Or maybe even an MD, as I am interested in translational medicine). I just feel there is a glass ceiling in how far you can climb up the corporate ladder without those extra letters behind your name. I am not saying that one cannot be "successful" without one but there are more opportunities with them. Just as others have mentioned, BS/BA are common these days that one needs an advanced degree for distinction.

If you are an FOB like myself (I'm not trying to be insulting), I recommend you learn to dress extremely well, take accent reduction classes, and join Toast Masters. You'll see opportunities open up a lot more than if you remain a meek, quiet, lab rat whose English is barely understood.

Biotech is very competitive and cut-throat environment. People with a solid science background coupled with a strong business, verbal and presentation skills are posed to do the best. Why? Because while a science degree (say BS or MS) is great for bench work, it doesn't automatically translate into a a management or executive position. PhDs who lack strong interpersonal skills can have it tough too, as they are too overqualified to do bench work, yet a company might be hesitant to hire them to be the "face" of a particular division. Again, if you can manage to hone in the knowledge plus the skills, you'll find yourself highly marketable.

PhD support programs in pharma are a thing of the past. 10 years ago, this was a benefit. These days for senior management to make the biggest bonuses they need to cut benefits and this is one of the first to always go.

With companies moving to cheap outsourced labor, there's no reason to keep someone employed and pay for them to be more valuable, only to have them demand an increase in salary and position because they obtained more letters on the company's dime. At least in the US, you have a better chance of finding a gold bar on the sidewalk than you have of finding a company that still does this.

Some companies may foot the bill for a course or two if it pertains to the person's job responsibilities, maybe a little seminar or something, but a whole degree program? Fat chance.

None that I've heard of. I know some companies provide tuition reimbursement for degrees such as law, MBA, and MA/MS as long as it is in the related field of the employee. Of course, you'll have to be employed and continued to be employed and in good standing for you to receive that benefit. Since in the US, there are no part-time PhD programs, this would simply be impossible. Don't know what is like in Europe, Australia, or Canada though.

Does anyone know any pharmaceutical/biotech companies that have PhD programs affiliated with any schools? I've been working in the industry since I was a grad and see myself working here (as opposed to working to med school within a few years immediately although that is still a thought, anyways I digress) However, I see a glass ceiling in terms of moving up without those extra letters behind one's name, my question is are there any companies that offer to send employees into a PhD program? I know many offer tuition reimbursement but that is geared more towards a BS/MS.

Things to consider before getting a PhD:

1. What motivates you to get a PhD?

2. Do you have enough experience to back up your career? Don't rely on the degree alone.

3. Is the field in which you're getting your PhD marketable? No offense, but a PhD in Developmental Biology, Ecology, or even Inorganic Chemistry are no much on demand. Degrees in Organic Chemistry, Medicinal Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Molecular and Cell Bio and Genetics are more marketable.

Lots of responses here from our American cousins, her's a UK perspective. I have a PhD Chemistry (not currently working in chemistry) and over 30 years in Pharma ranging from top 6 global pharma to start up biotech.
Currently working in Germany. Last 8 years been made redundant 3 times. If you are starting your pharma career accept that you will be made redundant every 3-5 years and accept you will have to work globally. If you cannot accept this leave pharma. If you can and are prepared to do so move to China. If you want to climb the greasy pole get a job in a small pharma at the most senior position you can and after 2 years apply to major pharma. This won't garantee you success but puts you ahead of the no hopers who haden't the guts to go into small pharma. Next you must become a politician. Identify the key opinion leaders and be prepared to lick some egoes!

I think that people who say an MS degree in worthless are thinking strictly in terms of "teaching in academia" or working as a "Director" in pharma. However, those are but two out of the many choices there are in the market today. You can have an MS and do very well in fields like Regulatory Affairs, Quality Assurance, Quality Control, etc. If you are in Business, Human resources, IT, etc, it would definitely give you an "edge" over someone with just a bachelors. Notice, however, that I'm not advocating a graduate degree "in lieu" of industry experience. However, more and more employers are now requiring a graduate degree for management level positions. I think it has to do with the fact that virtually everyone has a BA/BS these days. Therefore, an MA/MS/MBA shows that someone went through the trouble and commitment of furthering their education. I personally don't see anything wrong with that; especially when certain new fields, such as Regulatory Affairs, Biotechnology, etc are hurting for people with knowledge in these fields.

I have a Phd in theoretical physics.
After 1 year, status: unemployed. After that, you just want to kill yourself. But, as you're "brilliant" and "aware" (you got a Phd, right?), you don't. That's it.

I was picked at a young age to go to special school because I was very bright according to people who tested me; I have a PhD in math and in electrical engineering; I had my own company and in the recession went broke and for 1 year I cannot find a job. Most my employees have all found jobs.

Try joining the military, they are always looking for a few bright people. With a PhD you would go in as an officer. As for getting an advanced degree, I say go for it. You will always hear tales of woe, but in the long run, it will pay off. I have a couple of them and wouldn't change a thing.

I was picked at a young age to go to special school because I was very bright according to people who tested me; I have a PhD in math and in electrical engineering; I had my own company and in the recession went broke and for 1 year I cannot find a job. Most my employees have all found jobs.

Don't get a Phd trust me.

My friends and I from High School keep up with one another. I have BS Biology(Pharma Job), one has PhD Organic Chem (Pharma Job), One was in Army (HS Diploma), One pumped septics (HS Diploma), one is a plumber (HS Diploma), one installs cell phone towers (HS Diploma), one is an executive at Coca Cola (BS), and one works construction (HS Diploma).

Q. Which one is the wealthiest?
A. The plumber.

Q.Which one is poorest?
A. The guy in the Army.

Q. Rank income from most to least.
A. Plumber>Septic Guy>Construction>PhD Pharma>Coke Exec>BS Pharma>Cell Phone Tower>Army

I should note that the tradesmen own their own companies but have no school debt and made money while they learned their trades.

This bums me out everytime we get together.

For the record, I am not suggesting that any Ph.D. should seek a lower position, nor am I saying that a Ph.D. will get hired for a lower position. Granted, I don't know what it is like for a Ph.D., since I have only a Master of Science myself, and I am not having luck finding work, either.

Add one more unemployed PhD holder to this list. 9 months and counting. It's not what you know (e.g. pHd), but rather who. As a young student with stars in my eyes many a moon ago, I never could conceive of just how volatile this industry was.

I have seen ads for positions requiring (or at least accepting) a Ph.D. for a research ASSOCIATE position. Research associates are not supposed to be lab technicians, even if they might get treated that way.

Further, not all positions advertised as "Scientist" require a Ph.D. anyway, particularly if the title is "Associate Scientist".

There are posistions below that of Ph.D. Research Scientist and above that of Lab Technician.

No, a Ph.D. will never be hired as a TECHNICIAN, but MIGHT get a job as something that is not quite a senior level research scientist.

Seriously, lay off the personal attacks. Not everyone has a lot of experience in this industry and might just be trying to get information. Useful insight and constructive criticism are appreciated. Insults are not.

I have a PhD job with a BS degree. It always amazes me that people value the PhD so much, when most of them aren't worth anything at all. A lot of people get them from just hanging around in grad school long enough. In some ways they're ruined people, they have lousy training, can't accomplish much, but at the same time you you can't tell them anything, or train them, because their head is swollen from their so called PhD. Why is it so hard for people to accept, that someone with an undergrad degree, can't create the same level of ability, from years working in industry, that you'd expect from a good PhD. Granted they're few and far between, but it's certainly possible.

Masters degrees are virtually valueless. They don't given you enough experience or instruction to be taken seriously as an independent investigator (i.e to compete with PhDs). Most MS degree holders I know are doing the same jobs for the same money as thse with BS degrees, only they're a year behind in practical experience and mostly have greater debts to repay.

The only useful masters degrees are MBAs and any masters where the objective is to change your field e.g. swapping from bioscience to webdesign or something like that.

Agree totally. Learn to speak Mandarin.

Nobody in this world is going to hire a Ph.D. to do a technician's work. Wake up.

I don't think they said that a Ph.D. WOULD actually get HIRED for a MS position. They said that a Ph.D. is CAPABLE of working in an MS position.

100% true.

Bullshit. Mentioning that you have a doctorate while applying for a position that specifies a MSc degree is the kiss of death. You are spreading disinformation.

Many jobs require a degree that is not necessarily in a particular field.

Further, a person with an advanced degree can still work in a reduced capacity. A Ph.D. can certainly function as a lab technician, if research scientist positions aren't available.

The humanities and social sciences are a totally different can of worms than a MS or PhD in the hard sciences. Graduate degree holders in chemistry, biology, physics and engineering (to varying degrees) have options for an industrial career if they do not aspire to be an academic. Advanced degree holders in the humanities have little no other career path than being an academic. You're comparing apples and oranges.

"If you are smart and have an impressive track record of accomplishment ... you will find a job easily in any economy, regardless of whether or not you have extra letters after your name."

Unfortunately, one must first receive the opportunity to build such a track record. Nobody is born with experience.