The recent discussion on the differences between a M.S. and Ph.D. positions has set me to thinking about the differences between the degrees, skill sets and overall employability. But first, let's look at the salary numbers.
Assume that we have 4 individuals. They're all in the same group in graduate school, they're all the same age, gender, whatever. At year 0, they decide to take 4 different paths, as shown below:
Person A: takes M.S. immediately, goes to work for 60k, gets 1% raise a year
Person B: takes M.S. immediately, goes to work for 70k, gets 1% raise a year
Person C: stays in grad school, takes Ph.D. in 2 years, goes to work for 80k, gets 1% raise a year
Person D: stays in grad school, takes Ph.D. in 2 years, does 2 year postdoc, goes to work for 90k, gets 1% raise a year
At year 20, how will their earnings differ?
Person A, M.S. (year 20 total earnings): $1,321,140.24
Person B, M.S. (year 20 total earnings): $1,541,330.28
Person C, Ph.D. (year 20 total earnings): $1,569,179.81
Person D, Ph.D. + postdoc (year 20 total earnings): $1,553,207.80
My spreadsheet is here, for those of you who are interested.
Caveats: There weren't any promotions in these cases, so there weren't any considerations of pay grades and the like. The salaries are a bit made up (I doubt there are postdocs hired into industry at salaries 10k above their non-postdoc colleagues.) Also, there are layoffs to be considered (how do you calculate that?)
Conclusions? Hard to say, but in this idealized scenario, assuming all other things equal, Ph.D. chemists make up the 2 year difference in salary between their already-working M.S. brethren/sistren in the first ten years of their working life, if not sooner.
Is the salary difference really that great? It depends, of course, on the magnitude of the difference. In that first 20 years, the lifetime difference in total salary between Person B, (70k annual salary) and Person C (80k) is less than $30,000. (Note: of course, it's not completely fair to compare someone who's been in the workforce for 18 years as opposed to 20.)
Also, it's clear that postdocs aren't a great financial decision, in the short term. But that's not why people take postdoctoral appointments. Long term, obviously, if a postdoc gives you more training, better contacts and more job opportunities, then they're worth it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey CJ, thanks for the post. AAAS published a similar article a little while ago comparing BS and Ph.D salaries over an extended period of time. Here's a link:
ReplyDeletehttp://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2008_04_11/caredit.a0800055
The article cites where they get the data also (actual NSF data!!). So maybe you could follow up with a post on chemists. The article is for biologists, FYI.
ReplyDeleteLooks like a losing situation for the PhD, especially for the current generation. Last generation probably immediately made up for any opportunity costs. This generation of scientists? They get a nice postdoc with Holton after 2-3 years of postdoc!! And they can't use industry as an escape valve. It's clogged full of applicants for jobs that have become revolving doors. Postdoc is welfare to work for scientists.
Try www.salaryexplorer.com. Good Luck.
ReplyDeletethese numbers are exaggerated
ReplyDeleteHere are some data points I've found from my experience as a PhD in training and from my fellow students who have graduated.
ReplyDeleteGraduate salary $22,500 (5-6yrs)
Job after PhD only $70-75K (Some of these people got laid off though =( )
PostDoc salary $30,000 2-4yrs (These seem to get laid off less)
Job after PhD+Postdoc $80-85K
Someone with many years experience in med chem: $91K
That's about what I've seen.
I knew BS/MS chemists actually making 75K when they were 24-26 years old, lol. But those were some better days. So the 60-70K is not unrealistic for someone that is sharp.
Keep in mind also that the chemists are used to living on a low budget and will not spend everything. In this case, after accounting for the money invested earlier and grown over 20 years, the PhD would have a lower net worth.
ReplyDeleteThis calculation is very flawed. A Ph.D level chemist will get much larger bonuses than a masters or BS level chemist. Also, yearly raises are typically in the 2.5% to 3% range, which also contributed to larger differences in salaries over a 20 year span. This is not to mention the fact that MS and BS level employees can hit their salary ceilings faster than Ph.Ds. Whether or not a post-doc will get you more money is debatable, but the difference between career earnings of an MS and a Ph.D. is much more significant than your calculation shows.
ReplyDeletewow im in highschool doing research and im seeing this good news becuase i was expecting to earn less than 60k with a phd in chemistry
ReplyDelete