Employment & Unemployment......4 Employment Characteristics......5 Salaries...............6 Job Search Methods..............7 Major Sectors of Employment.........9 Primary Work Activities............10 Opinions.............11 Methods..............12 Response Rates..... 13 Technical Notes.....13
|
Employment of Recent Doctoral Graduates in S&E: Results of Professional Society Surveys August 6, 1998"Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (Disclaimer required by NSF Grant General Conditions GC-1, 12/97)
The number of recent PhD respondents who were still seeking employment (or a postdoc) as of mid-October 1997 ranged from 0.6% (10 people) in psychology to 7.0% (also 10 people) in political science, with most fields reporting relatively small numbers of individuals who were still looking for a position. For the six fields for which comparable data are available from last year, the percent of those unemployed and seeking remained about the same or decreased slightly. One should bear in mind that it is a relatively small number of individuals in each of these fields who are still seeking, and the percentages are influenced in part by the numbers of PhDs who responded to the survey (see Technical Note). Employment and Unemployment (for 1996-1997 PhDs as of mid-October 1997)
1Biochemistry and molecular biology data are preliminary.2Physics data are for those with domestic addresses only.3Physiology data are for 1995-1996 graduates; more recent data are forthcoming.4Political science sample size is relatively small, so percentages should be interpreted with caution.5Sociology data are preliminary; ASA is attempting to increase response rate to 70%.Still, we find that when the professional societies ask about employment for the same reference week, we do not see the wide variation in the percentages of those unemployed and seeking across fields that we saw when they were asking about different times of the year. For those who were still looking for a position, a range from three months to 9 months of "actively looking" was reported. It is interesting to compare the time spent looking for a job for those still seeking, with the time it took those who had already landed a job. In some cases, e.g., computer science and biochemistry/molecular biology, respondents who were job hunting had spent about the same amount of time on average looking as was reported for those who had gotten positions. So these new PhDs may well have been on the brink of obtaining a position. In other fields, however, the gap is wider with respondents who were job hunting having looked twice as long as it took for those who landed jobs, so new docs in these fields may be having a somewhat more difficult time.
Relatively few recent PhDs reported that they were working part-time with the exceptions of 24% in psychology, 14% in political science, and 8% in earth and space sciences. In the case of psychology, so many recipients hold two or more part-time jobs, that the APA survey asks a double set of questions about one’s primary and secondary positions. In some cases, this is a new PhD who is working at a university and in a practice setting simultaneously. For other fields, the percentage of recipients working part time may be either an indication of similar diversity in employment or an indication of some weakness in the job market. The societies did ask if the part time position was taken because "a suitable full-time work week job was not available," and these data are (or will be) reported at their individual web sites with elaboration of the unique circumstances for their fields. As might be expected, fields with a high percentage of postdocs reported high percentages of those in temporary positions (operationally defined as having an end date), although not all temporary positions were postdocs. The range for those who reported they were involuntarily in a temporary position ("because a suitable permanent job was not available") was 17% to 92%, so perceptions of the acceptability of a temporary position varied widely across the fields. As we can imagine, there is a large difference between taking a potentially lucrative fixed-term contract position in business/industry versus taking one’s primary employment as an adjunct instructor. When asked if they were currently actively looking for another job even though they already had one, the range varied from 20-45% by field. These job incumbents are still expending energy despite the fact that, in most cases at least, they have just recently gotten a position. For these new docs, and especially those in postdoctoral appointments, the need for job/career assistance is ongoing. For these new professionals, the services of campus career centers may not be available/applicable (although this is changing at some universities). In these cases, career services offered by professional associations/societies such as www.nextwave.org (see also the list of web sites for field-specific societies) may be especially helpful and appreciated.
Salaries in business/industry are greater, not surprisingly, than those in other sectors, but what may surprise some is the discrepancy among sectors in some of the fields. Within specific sectors, there is great variability by field (for these data postdocs were excluded). For example, in educational institutions, new PhDs in some fields received 11-12 month salaries that were nearly twice as much as those in other fields. Salaries (for Those Employed in the U.S.) Note: Postdocs are excluded except for the column specifically labeled postdocs.
1$ 35,500 for clinical/medical2$ 34,500 for clinical/medicalSalaries for postdocs vary widely by field, due in part to the availability of industrial or government lab postdocs in some fields, although these are still relatively few in comparison to the large percentages of academic postdocs. Additional retrospective data on postdocs (including data on benefits) are available from a one-time set of survey questions in the 1995 Survey of Doctorate Recipients (the SDR is sent to a representative sample of all those who have received PhDs in the U.S.) via the NSF’s SESTAT system at www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm .
The top four job search methods as selected by respondents in each field showed that informal channels for finding a job appear to be most effective. For most fields, faculty advisors were ranked as the second most effective, PhDs in a growing number of fields reported electronic resources as valuable. Society newsletters or magazines were rated as highly effective for some other fields. Job Search Methods (top four ranked methods within field)
* Note that it is an electronic version of a newsletter that led to the print version of the same newsletter being ranked fourth. When the print and web versions are combined, "Job Openings for Economists" ranked number 1 overall.While some of the variance in job search methods chosen might be attributed to the content of the field itself or the likely sector of employment, e.g., mathematicians rated electronic resources first and computer scientists ranked it second, there is undoubtedly variance based on the services provided by the professional societies. In fact, in some cases its is the society newsletter that is now provided on line that has led to the shift to the web. For the fields for which we have comparable data from last year, there was an increase in the rankings for electronic resources in just one year. In fact, half of actual surveys returned by the engineering PhDs for this project were web-based and half were paper copies.
The employment destination for most graduates in some fields is academia – the historically traditional path for PhDs. However, the field-specific variability is great, with fields one might expect to be industry oriented, e.g., computer science and engineering, having more new docs head into the business world.
1Category not included in core set of questions.2Includes those employed in national labs.The life science fields saw more new PhDs head back into academe, but once again, a large proportion of these positions was temporary postdocs. The large proportion of psychology doctorates heading into clinical/medical settings stands out in the data. As one considers what one wants to be as a "grown-up," the idea of being a professor probably conjures up notions in the general public of teaching, with perhaps a lab on the side for demonstrations and some research. When one looks at the percentage of those new PhDs who actually spend most of their time teaching in the first year out, the proportions vary quite widely across the fields. Again, postdocs account for much of this variability since they are largely research oriented. However, in the Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 40% of academically employed scientists and engineers at all levels of experience still reported R&D as their primary work activity, while 44% reported teaching received most of their time.
In business, it is interesting to note the different primary work activities across fields as some scientists and engineers spend more or less time in research versus development or design versus professional services.
131% of those employed in academia indicated teaching and research equally; this was not a response option in the core set of questions.Note: Rows within sector do not total to 100% because of small percentages reporting diverse other categories, the "other" category itself, and individuals who chose multiple primary work activities when asked to choose one.Again, the popular concept of scientist in lab coat with microscope nearby does not apply to many of these scientists.
When new docs rated (1) the extent to which their jobs were related to their fields, (2) the extent to which the job was commensurate with their education, and (3) the professional challenge involved in their jobs, the average ratings for all fields tended toward strongly agree (although the range did span the rating options from 1 to 5). Using the scale below:
Ratings for the fourth opinion item that asked if the position was similar to what they expected to be doing when they began the doctoral program were lower on average indicating some unexpected outcomes. However, it should be noted that we do not know how positive or negative these unexpected outcomes were. For some, perhaps a faculty position was the intended destination, but the competition for these positions has heated up so much lately that fewer new PhDs have been able to join the ranks. For others, perhaps an industrial internship redirected career interests. We can speculate about other reasons, but it is interesting to note that across fields, PhDs consistently rated this opinion question differently than the other three. While not all unexpected outcomes are negative, this result might indicate the needs for enhanced career advising and better data on employment outcomes (such as this report) for those with PhDs in science and engineering.
In most cases, department chairs for the science fields and deans of engineering were asked to provide the names and addresses of recent doctoral graduates in their departments. Recent was defined as July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997 to be consistent with most federally funded national data collection efforts. Professional societies have up-to-date mailing lists of the Chairs’/Deans’ names and addresses, which made this task easier. In addition, the good relationships between the societies and departments/schools in their respective fields undoubtedly improved response rates. To have comparable results across science and engineering fields, professional societies asked the same core set of employment and related questions in a consistent format. Comparable data are more easily explained and understood, and therefore are more useful to students, faculty, policy makers, and others. For example, if societies report unemployment rates for recent graduates as measured in the summer after graduation versus the following spring, rates will be different across fields. If on the other hand, societies present data collected in the same time frame and for the same reference week, the data will be comparable across fields. For this reason, the original project team funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation developed a core set of questions. These questions were pilot tested during the 1996-1997 academic year (for 1995-1996 graduates) and were revised for the 1997-1998 surveys. The core questions tap such variables as education, employment, and other background information, for timely assessments of the job market. Other variables were excluded intentionally since federal data collection programs provide these data. Professional societies added additional field-specific or other questions such as area of specialty or dissertation. To support this desire, the set of core questions was intentionally kept to a minimum so that the questionnaire did not become too long. These additional data are (or will be) presented on the web pages of the respective societies and in various related publications (see separate list of web addresses). Some societies also expanded on the response choices for some survey questions, for example, asking more detail on employment sectors and destinations. When this was done, care was taken so that the results could still be aggregated into the same more general categories provided in the core set of questions. In this way, CPST was able to compile results for analyses across fields.
Response rates in these surveys are in the range of 34-73 percent of contacted new doctorates (see Response Rates) from about 60-90 percent of contacted graduate departments. It is reasonable to assume that there is some nonresponse bias in these data. However, it is equally reasonable to assume that bias operates in about the same direction in these different fields. Therefore, these data are useful to suggest where opportunities and problems might exist, and the relative differences among fields. The data are unlikely to serve as highly reliable estimates of the levels of the different variables. While these data address some of the same variables as in other databases (e.g., NSF's Survey of Doctorate Recipients), their unique contribution is in providing a timely set of measures for the range of employment conditions new doctorates have encountered after leaving graduate school. To obtain data this quickly necessarily involves some tradeoffs on such things as response rates. Efforts are ongoing to monitor and increase the response rates and to determine the representativeness of the resulting samples for those fields who plan to continue data collection in the coming years. More detailed data are collected—with more rigorous response rate requirements, consequently involving more time and resources to collect and disseminate—by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the biennial Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) (www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm ). It is important to note that the SDR includes about eight percent of all those who have received doctorates in the United States, so sample sizes for particular cohorts or classes, and for particular fields, may be too small for generalization. For this reason, the professional societies were intentionally redundant with some of the SDR questions they thought to be important. Also, since the federal surveys are conducted based on federal mandates for selected data of direct national interest and also require Office of Management and Budget approval, societies have some additional freedom to experiment with questions that may be of interest to them. For additional information on the methodology used, including a copy of a sample survey instrument, see the report, Road Map for Conducting Employment Surveys of Doctoral Graduates in S&E (available by calling 202-326-7080).
Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. (1998, May). Road map for conducting employment surveys of doctoral graduates in S&E. Washington, DC: Author. (Available by calling 202-326-7080) Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. (1998, June). Employment outcomes of doctorates in science and engineering: Results of a CPST workshop. Washington, DC: Author. (Available at www.cpst.org or by calling 202-326-7080) Fowler, F.J., Jr. (1984). Survey research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Henderson, P. H., Clarke, J. E., & Woods, C. (1998). Summary report 1996: Doctorate recipients from United States universities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Foundation (NSF). (1997). Science and engineering doctorate awards: 1996 (NSF 97-329). Arlington, VA: Author. (Available at www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm) National Science Foundation (NSF). (1997). Characteristics of doctoral scientists and engineers in the United States: 1995 (NSF 97-319). Arlington, VA: Author. (Available at www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm) Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York, NY: John Wiley. (Available for $17.95 from John Wiley at 1-800-225-5945) The Section on Survey Research Methods of the American Statistical Association (1429 Duke Street; Alexandria, VA 22314-3402; 703-684-1221; www.amstat.org) has a collection of 12-page pamphlets in its "What Is a Survey?" series.
Web sites that contain data/information on the job market for recent doctorates are listed below. Please keep in mind that web site addresses change relatively frequently, so you may need to visit the associated home page for an updated link. Data from multiple disciplines/fields:
Data and related careers/employment information for specific disciplines/fields:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
