Every year, more students enroll in doctoral programs. Some are driven by curiosity and the pull of discovery. Many also arrive expecting that their work and sacrifice will translate into a meaningful, well-paying career.
In Canada, historical data suggests that more than half of Ph.D. students in most fields (other than health) enter their programs hoping to become a university professor. Survey data from the U.S. paints a similar picture, showing that the aspiration is more widely shared.
Most of us who have walked the Ph.D. path, or who support Ph.D. students in their job searches, already know how this story typically ends. In Canada, only about 15 percent of Ph.D. graduates hold a full-time professor job three years out. The Council of Canadian Academies’ Expert Panel on the Labour Market Transition of PhD Graduates put the share of Ph.D.s in the labor force holding tenure-track roles at roughly 19 percent. Self-studies from leading Canadian research universities (e.g., the University of British Columbia , Western University ) do not show their graduates substantially bucking the trend. We have seen no evidence that the grass is currently greener in any jurisdiction that we are familiar with.
There is a well-known structural mismatch in the academic job market between the number of new doctorates minted each year and the number of tenure-track positions that are posted. And, with budgets tightening across the sector, it is hard to imagine that faculty hiring will pick up any time soon. This means that the majority of Ph.Ds. will need to carve out nonacademic careers, something for which programs do not typically prepare them. Or, at least, prepare them well.
Most faculty traveled a direct route from their own doctorate into a tenure-track role. They never personally experienced a rocky transition into government, industry or some other nonacademic sector, along with the different norms that guide the evaluation and selection of candidates in these domains. We say this without placing blame: It is unfair to expect someone to coach a student through a transition they have never made themselves. A Ph.D. supervisor can be a brilliant scholar and a generous mentor, yet have little sense of how to orient students on how to navigate the nonacademic job market.
The typical reassurance is that acquiring a doctorate pays off even if it doesn’t lead to a tenure-track role. The evidence for this is thinner than we’d hope. Recent Canadian research by Dwayne Benjamin and colleagues , drawing on linked administrative enrollment and tax records, finds that doctoral graduates earn less than their counterparts with master’s degrees early on in their careers. Those with Ph.D.s do see their earnings recover over time, eventually exceeding those of master’s graduates, but Benjamin et al.’s research suggests this earnings premium is driven primarily by the salaries of those who secure academic jobs and stay attached to the labor force the longest. For everyone else, the payoff is far less certain. Research from Europe has found a financial benefit to Ph.D. acquisition, but the fact that the evidence on this topic is mixed should be enough to raise concerns.
The difficult truth for many of our brightest students is that they may dedicate their most productive years to work that is intellectually rewarding, but which may not result in an occupational or financial advantage.
So, what can be done? We see room to act at multiple levels.
For students, skills development needs to be approached strategically, through course selection aligned with what employers outside the academy value. One tactic entails capitalizing on the advanced quantitative training offered by many social science departments, from economics to psychology, which transfers well into many government and industry jobs. Analyses of job postings suggest these data skills carry a strong wage premium and will arguably expand a graduate’s career options.
Work-integrated learning matters, too. Our own work at the undergraduate level shows that placements such as co-ops and internships improve both earnings and the fit between the job a graduate secures and their field of study. Where programs do not build these in, students should pursue these skills development opportunities, when possible, through summer jobs or applied research projects with industry partners.
For institutions, two potential reforms stand out. First, we need to start leveraging labor market outcomes data during new program development and cyclical reviews. In Canada, programs face no requirement to publish information on the outcomes of their graduates. As such, this data is seldom rendered publicly available. For those of us advising students, this information is a precondition for honest advising. You cannot effectively counsel a student if you lack an understanding of where graduates typically land. Rendering outcomes visible, at the most granular level privacy legislation allows, serves everyone.
The second potential reform pertains to hiring. If tenure-stream faculty cannot coach a transition they never made, this expertise has to come from elsewhere. One approach could entail tapping into Ph.D. alumni who have successfully built careers beyond the academy. Universities can also bring that knowledge in-house through professional-track faculty roles designed to play this specific function.
A lot of this does not require getting permission from “above.” A career educator can begin collecting graduate outcomes data this term. A program can invite alumni working outside academia to speak candidly with current Ph.D. students. A supervisor can say, early and plainly, that the academic path is one of several plausible outcomes, and not the default.
We expect some resistance to these ideas. The Ph.D., like other deeply institutionalized structures in the university, evolved in response to a labor market that has not existed for decades. Realigning it will feel like a loss to people who love what it once promised and more regularly delivered. But the students in front of us are not abstractions, and they will be best served by a system that is responsive to the world as it is.