Interview: C&EN's Bethany Halford, on the "Too Many Ph.D.s" problem

I hope that all of you have read Bethany Halford's article "Doctoral Dilemma" in the January 31, 2011 issue of C&EN. I am terribly pleased that Dr. Halford (and her bosses at C&EN) were willing to participate in an e-mail Q&A about the article. The answers below have been formatted for posting and checked by her for accuracy.

Also, Dr. Halford will be visiting the comments section a few times today, so feel free to post questions to her in the comments.

Chemjobber: About how many people did you ultimately interview?

Bethany Halford: I spoke to or emailed with about 30 different people for this story.

CJ: Among the range of responses, what percentage would you estimate to be kinda-sorta optimistic about their chances of finding a position? What percentage were looking at leaving chemistry altogether?

BH: The job seekers I spoke with all found the search process to be very frustrating, but they were all still plugging away, although I’d have a hard time saying they were optimistic. None, however, seemed to want to leave chemistry altogether. There were a number of people—although not necessarily among the unemployed—who felt that the employment problems facing chemists are the same employment problems facing the entire country at the moment. Many were optimistic that things would turn around in time.

CJ: How hard did you have to look to find someone that was willing to provide an optimistic quote?

BH: Not hard at all. There are plenty of people out there who don’t think there’s an oversupply of Ph.D.s. In fact, I’d say most of the people in my first round of interviews didn’t think this was a newsworthy topic.

CJ: What was the range of emotion? Did you hear from people that were genuinely angry?

BH: Some people are genuinely angry, but I’d say for most people frustrated is a more accurate adjective. Getting a Ph.D. can be a long, hard slog. Long hours with little reward. It’s not good to find out that the light at the end of the tunnel is a train.

As chemists, we all can’t help but see how central chemistry is to our everyday lives. And so there are many of us, myself included, who entered graduate school thinking that with a Ph.D. in chemistry we could do something we enjoyed, make some sort of contribution to society, and still make a decent, steady living. To find that’s not necessarily the case is really disheartening.

CJ: Professor Hoveyda seems to be suggesting that US graduates might try looking elsewhere in the world -- is this a correct reading of his statement?

BH: I think that is the correct reading of his statement. And I think that strikes Americans as an odd proposition. But he has a point--it’s really not so foreign a concept to most people in the world.

I should add, however, that he also suggested reorganizing the way academic research is done in the U.S.—as one of your commenters suggested—so that there were more research associates (fulltime, reasonably paid positions).

CJ: Did you hear from employers who were bucking the trend, i.e. saying we can't get enough of __?___ kind of scientist?

BH: Anecdotally, some people said that there was a need for more analytical chemists, but it’s not really something I focused on. I didn’t want to end up rewriting Susan Ainsworth’s excellent story on the demand for chemists, “Cautiously Optimistic”.

CJ: For me, anyway, your article has kind of settled the argument for me, as much as I didn't want to believe it. What are the next questions that we need to be asking?

BH: It’s interesting that you say that, because I’m not sure the argument is settled for me. Supply is indeed going up but I’m not sure about demand. One thing that got cut from the piece—according to the most recent ACS salary and employment survey (2009), unemployment is higher for bachelor’s and master’s chemists than it is for Ph.D.s. The same holds true for new graduates at all levels, according to preliminary data in ACS’s 2009 survey of starting salaries for chemists and chemical engineers. Still, there’s no doubt about it; it’s harder for chemists to find work now than it’s been in quite some time. If there’s one thing I think we should really be thinking about, it’s how can we make a chemistry Ph.D. a more versatile degree?

CJ: I know you're not a soothsayer, but what signs would say to you that the negative trends might be reversing themselves?

BH: I’m not sure. Fewer people trying to jump ship and become science writers? Fewer people reading the Chemjobber blog?

CJ: Anything you'd like to say to the CJ readership, now that you're not limited by space?

BH: I like to say thanks to everyone who took the time to read my story. I appreciate that you’re busy and your time is valuable. I’d also like folks to know that we pay close attention to your feedback at C&EN. If there’s something you like or don’t like in the magazine, please don’t hesitate to write us. Also, my colleagues and I do read this blog and the comments herein. We are doing our best to listen to what you have to say.

CJ here again. Huge thanks to Beth for her time and being willing to answer questions -- and thanks again for writing a pretty great article about the situation. Best wishes to all of us. Don't forget, if you have questions for Beth, leave them in the comments!